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 - 05/18/1993
City of Kent City Council Meetin ...... Agenda3z CITY OF U!2 ME Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White May 18, 1993 Office of the City Clerk v_Juw SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 18 , 1993 � Y 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 Commuter Rail Update (� 5Urah P1 Dul gC Wi " �,_ �,an�c StLtLtcn� 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS Water Conservation Plan 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR ,A! Minutes -1 ' Bills Critical Areas/Wetlands - Ordinance Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Policies/Critical Areas - Resolution ,R. Valley Com Interlocal Agreement Addendum - Resolution �'. civil Violations, Enforcement & Abatement Ordinance -49-" Public Nuisances - Ordinance I. Disposition of Junk Vehicles - Ordinance x: Weeds & Vegetation - Ordinance �. LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks - Ordinance '. Hill Building 80-A - Bill of Sale �! Commuter Rail System - Resolution Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant Funds - Resolution I-3:" King County Conservation Futures Funding - Resolution -A: Project Lighthouse & Kent Youth Center - Resolution Youth Center - Planning & Design - RFP L-KCUSeJ ` -k)Serlce 1,J C),4S 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Refunding of 1980 , 1986 and 1990 Vote}c Bonds - Bond Ordinance & Purchase Contract �. Refunding of 1978 and 1989 Councilmanic Bonds - Bond Ordinance & Purchase Contract Public Works Construction Standards - Ordinance r' F1. Venture 84 Rezone - Ordinance Interim Potential Annexation Areas - Resolution Permit Process Direction 5 . BIDS None 6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations 8 . 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) Commuter Rail Update 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing mTrd��,� on the proposed Water Conservation Plan. This proposed plan is to be incor- porated into the City' s adopted Water System Plan as an amendment tkr�. ThQ i}},,,, '"&-r + ion cncr•; a l i at wi 1 1 ., 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0 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 : OPEN HEARING: ��� PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember + '" y seconds f-&Q_ lu-4 &-L- that the City Attorney be directed to prepare Aft ordinance for the adoption of the Water Conservation Plan as an amendment to the City' s adopted Water System Plan. DISCUSSION: /L,r ACTION: y L:h"1 -cc Council Agenda Item No. 2A PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE APRIL 21, 1993 PRESENT: PAUL MANN ED WHITE JIM BENNETT JOHN BOND TONY McCARTHY - ROBYN BARTELT GARY GILL MAY MILLER TOM BRUBAKER MR & MRS RUST CHIEF ED CRAWFORD ABSENT: JIM WHITE DON WICKSTROM James Street Safety Improvements Bennett stated that in his opinion, the real safety issue on James Street is the left turns into the Church. Chief Crawford stated that yellow lights do work in trying to take .care- of specific merging problems. Gary Gill stated that staff is planning to install additional flashing lights closer to Summit on James St. John Bond said this installation will be completed in 60 days . Gill explained that Ed white is planning to contact Ron Benson from City Transfer and revisit the issue about alternative access in and out of the church site because they had talked to staff at one time about acquiring easements from property owners just east of the church parking lot site and constructing a new driveway access up onto Alvord .St . This then would take them to an intersection which would help solve that problem. Water Conservation Plan Robyn Bartelt stated that approval of Kent ' s Water Comprehensive Plan is contingent upon the City having a water conservation element. This plan has been prepared based on the guidelines from the Dept of Ecology, Dept of Health and the WA Water Utility Council . Bartelt further stated that this plan details how the City intends on meeting the goals of the. 6 . 5% water reduction by 1995 and 8% by the year 2000 . Bartelt noted that also included in the plan is a projected budget impact and .it is estimated that it will be incorporated into the 1994 budget . Bartelt explained that some of the major costs would include printing and distributing a quarterly newsletter, which would be printed in-house, and technical studies which will be showing the consumption history on the utility bill . Bartelt said that the plan itself basically addresses key areas such as public education, technical assistance programs, systems measures and incentives and requirements . 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 14, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS C�OM�MITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM 11A 1 RE: WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Attached you will find the City of Kent ' s Water Conservation Plan and budget impact. Formal approval by King County of our Comprehensive Plan is tied to the development of this Water Conservation Plan. Previous City Council action adopted the King County Resolution establishing the conservation goals but King County requires an actual plan on how we are going to achieve those goals . The City of Kent Water Conservation Plan will meet the requirements of King County and the South King County Coordinated Water System Plan. As noted, the attached indicate the implementation/costs of this plan. It is proposed said costs to be incorporated into the ' 94 budget. Actual adoption of this would be by an ordinance, for which a draft thereof will be available at the meeting. The Public Works Department recommends adoption of this Plan. ACTION: Recommends adoption of the Water Conservation Plan and incorporating it as part of- the City ' s adopted Water System Plan. Bartelt stated that she feels that public education will be one of the key areas to reach the public. Bartelt stated that as recommended by the Public Works Dept. we need to adopt the plan by ordinance. Brubaker asked the Committee if they wish to move forward on this plan, he will draft an ordinance and include it in the packet for the next Council meeting, May 4th. Committee directed Brubaker to draft an ordinance adopting the Water Conservation Plan as an element of the City' s Comprehensive Water Plan. Bennett made a comment at this time stating that the small change theater was an excellent idea. Bennett alsp made a comment relative to the pressure reduction paragraph in the plan stating that he is concerned with the lowering of pressure because most fire mains are built to a minimum standard without an extra "cushion" . Gill explained that we have a computerized model of our water system that we use thru CH2M Hill. Thru this model we can do a very in-depth analysis as to what a system can deliver for fire protection. This is a primary element in the design of our entire water system. In response to McCarthy, Bartelt stated that the quarterly newsletter would be going out with the utility bills . In response to Bennett, Bartelt said the budget for this comes out-of the water utility fund. CITY OF KENT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 1993 This document summarizes the guidelines for water conservation activities for the City of Kent in keeping with the elements of the South King County Coordinated Water System Plan (SKC CWSP) and King County Ordinance #9461 . The conservation plan is designed to improve the efficient delivery of water, reduce the amount of water wasted in the delivery process, and increase the available water supply. The City of Kent, in addition to other Puget Sound region communities, realize that water is a life- essential, limited resource that needs protection, preservation and conservation. The City of Kent has been an active participant in the South King County Regional Water Association (SKC RWA) having implemented various water conservation programs identified in their Guidelines for Water Conservation Programs adopted May 21 , 1991 . WATER USE DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS As identified in the Interim Guidelines prepared by the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, and Washington Water Utilities Council, minimum data collection is required to project public water system demands and to provide a basis for the evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation programs. The year 1991 has been selected as the baseline year for identifying per capita consumption. Data collection for a six year period between 1991 and 1996 is desired to determine and evaluate consumption trends and the effectiveness of conservation programs. The data collection schedule for Kent is shown below by data type and frequency. *source of supply meter - daily reading *service meter usage recorded single family - every two months multi-family - every two months commercial/public/industrial - every month irrigation/community system - semi-annual *unaccounted for water *annual total by source *peak day/peak month *population served *conservation data WATER DEMAND FORECAST The Interim Guidelines identify appropriate demand forecasting methodology for public water systems to evaluate supply demands. Kent's water demand has been forecast through the Water System Plan for the City of Kent and includes total water demand forecasting as well as separate projections for residential and commercial/industrial consumption. The projections are in line with those projected under the SKC CWSP. Factors used in- developing future demand forecasts will include water use, land use/zoning/capacity, water rates, and conservation savings as recommended in the Interim Guidelines. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM Kent's Water Conservation Program is outlined below. Program elements previously implemented as indicated in the SKC RWA Recommended Water Conservation Program (attachment A), include program promotion, single family/multi-family conservation kits, water leak detection, meters for all customers, and seasonal pricing. In addition, the City has_implemented several water conservation programs with the SKC RWA. Kent will continue to work with the SKC RWA to develop and implement programs at the regional level as well as the local level. Kent recognizes the need for long range conservation planning to meet future water demands. In December, 1992, the City hired a Conservation Specialist to coordinate the water conservation program. In addition, as shown in the Water rSystem Tacoma's Plan for the City of Kent, other than obtaining a portion of the supply fromen River Pipe Line #5, future source development involves constructing an Impoundment Reservoir. Said impoundment reservoir would store excess winter flows from existing sources (Clark Springs, Kent Springs and Pipe Line #5) for utilization during the peak summer demand period. This will result in conserving the regions ground water resources which would normally be tapped to meet the peak summer demands. Details of Kent's Water Conservation Program, including program objectives, elements, level of participation, schedule for implementation and budget are detailed in this report. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES To meet the City's goals of attaining a 6.5% water reduction by 1995 and 8% reduction by the year 2000, the conservation program will achieve the following objectives: -2- *improve efficient delivery of water *reduce the amount of water wasted in the delivery process *increase the available water supply *coordinate and support services and programs with adjacent water purveyors *reduce peak daily consumption *reduce peak monthly consumption *reduce total annual consumption *develop public awareness and education ASSESSMENT OF CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES The recommended conservation programs outlined in the Interim Guidelines are grouped into four categories: (1) public education, (2) technical assistance, (3) system measures, and (4),incentives/requirements. The Interim Guidelines require Kent to implement a moderate program as identified in attachment A. Kent's water conservation plan includes conservation elements above and beyond the minimum elements identified in the Interim Guidelines. PUBLIC EDUCATION The public education programs which the City is implementing are discussed below. These meet the requirements of the Interim Guidelines and include school outreach, speakers bureau, program promotion, and theme shows and fairs. School Outreach Programs - Since 1991 , the City of Kent has been involved in securing and scheduling the "Small Change Theatre" to perform plays at local elementary schools to teach children about the importance of water conservation. Additional programs and activities will be developed to include school presentations, tours of facilities, special projects involving students of all ages, and assisting with preparation of curriculum material. With the development of a conservation material library, schools will have access to educational materials to assist with water conservation programs in their classrooms. Speakers Bureau - The City of Kent will work cooperatively with the South King County RWA to develop a speakers bureau. City staff will be available to give presentations to groups, organizations, schools, businesses, and local residents, to encourage water conservation practices. Kent will prepare slide and video presentations with copies of video presentations on water conservation available for review at local libraries. -3- Program Promotion - In 1991 and 1992, Kent worked cooperatively with the SKC RWA to distribute lawn watering calendars to area residents and will incorporate the lawn watering schedule into a summer watering campaign. Kent also distributes water conservation information through it's utility bills and through articles in the local newspaper. Brochures produced by the Seattle Water Department, Department of Ecology, Department of Health, and other regional water agencies are also available at local libraries, City facilities and departments. The City will be producing an Environmental Awareness" brochure/newsletter for distribution which will include water conservation tips and information. Special "How To" classes and workshops will be offered to citizens to show methods of installing home water conservation devices, to provide information on types of devices available, water conservation ideas and methods for the home and business, outdoor watering techniques, water conserving landscape ideas and alternatives, how to read a water meter, and water supply sources and issues. A "Home Water Conservation Survey was conducted in September 1991 in cooperation with the SKC RWA, the cities of Bellevue, Everett, Fife, Kent, Puyallup and Tacoma. Results of the survey will be incorporated into public education programs. The development of a conservation library will include a wide range of multi-media materials. Brochures, pamphlets, books, portable displays, slide and video presentations relating to water conservation will be available to use at fairs, town meetings, community events, public meetings, schools and businesses. Theme Shows. and Fairs - The City of Kent provides staff, water conservation materials and displays to local and regional theme shows, fairs and the annual City of Kent Town Meeting. Exhibits are available to use at events throughout the area. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Kent currently offers assistance to customers within it's service area, in addition to working with the SKC RWA and other purveyors to provide technical assistance to customers as well as researching and conducting technical studies. Purveyor Assistance - The City of Kent will continue to work with other purveyors to provide assistance in developing and implementing conservation plans. The City's participation in the Water Conservation Coalition of Puget Sound and regional coordination in developing and implementing programs for the Puget Sound area, can greatly increase the effectiveness of water conservation. -4- Customer Assistance - Through the development of educational programs and information, and the training of staff on water conservation methods and devices, the City will provide direct assistance to customers to facilitate water conservation. Technical Studies - In 1991, the City of Kent, South King County RWA and other purveyors, hired Market Data Research to conduct a residential indoor water use survey. Survey results included customer's perceptions of available water supplies, customer behavior and attitudes, and current knowledge and use of conservation practices. Customers were also asked to respond to different conservation options available to assure future water supplies. Information collected from the survey will be used to develop appropriate conservation programs. The survey will be conducted in future years to audit changes in customers conservation practices, awareness and attitudes. Future plans will also include water audits of commercial and industrial customers. The City will continue to work with the SKC RWA and other water purveyors to-- collect data and research new technology to develop new programs which will produce measurable water savings. Bill Showing Consumption History - Kent will be implementing new programming on their customer water bill showing a graph depicting water consumption history, thus encouraging water. conservation. SYSTEM MEASURES System measures include a 100 percent_metered system, unaccounted water/leak detection, and -high technology meters. Metered Systems - The City of Kent requires metered systems for all domestic and /or industrial consumption of water. Additionally, all water service connections and plumbing must conform to relevant Washington State plumbing codes and City of Kent standards. Unaccounted Water/Leak Detection - In 1991 , the City conducted a leak survey of the oldest sections of town. A very minimum number of leaks were found and repaired. The City's inspection, repair, and replacement program is ongoing as a part of the preventive maintenance program. High Technology Meters - In recent years, the City's water system was upgraded to include a state-of-the-art automated computerized control and telemetry system. -5- INCENTIVES/REQUIREMENTS Incentives and requirements for the water conservation plan include single family/multi-family retrofit kits, new conservation practices for nurseries and agriculture, landscape management, conservation pricing, utility financed retrofit, mandatory seasonal water restrictions, potential recycle/reuse,and pressure reduction. Single Family/Multi-Family Retrofit - The City distributes kits containing water saving devices at it's annual town meeting in addition to educational and informational materials. The City of Kent Home Repair Program is also available to low-income and elderly residents to assist in installing devices and making minor repairs. Kent will work with the SKC RWA, Tacoma Water Division, Seattle Water Department, City of Everett, the BPA, and other utilities, to distribute devices in a regional effort. Kent will also look at programs and methods to deliver water conservation kits .and information to single family and multi-family customers. Nurseries/Agriculture - The City will continue to encourage the application of new technology for irrigation systems that will achieve greater irrigation efficiency. A computerized irrigation system was installed during construction of the City's new golf course in 1991, to increase efficiency in irrigation. Water for the irrigation system is taken from on-site wells. City facilities and departments will continue working together to promote and publicly demonstrate water conservation practices. Landscape Manage ment/Playfields - Kent will continue to encourage the use of low water demand landscaping by commercial, industrial, public and private water customers throughout the area. Public education materials, workshops, demonstrations and use of the speakers bureau, will be utilized to promote new landscaping ideas and methods to achieve greater irrigation efficiency. City Departments will work together to inventory properties, facilities, and develop plans for repairs and upgrades to irrigation systems. Results of Tacoma's landscape pilot study will be reviewed to help develop outdoor irrigation conservation measures and future landscape standards. Conservation Pricing - In July, 1992, The City of Kent implemented seasonal water rates to encourage water conservation. Implementation of the water bill showing consumption history and providing customers with education and information relating to water. conservation will encourage wise and efficient use of water. Utility Financed Retrofit - The City and SKC RWA will review program options for utility financed retrofit. Potential programs range from rebates to providing fixtures at the system's cost or at no cost. Kent's local retrofit program as discussed earlier is financed through the City's water fund. -6- Mandatory Seasonal Restrictions - The City has adopted "Water Shortage Emergency Regulations establishing methods and regulations for rationing water during a water shortage emergency. Future plans also include preparing a waste water ordinance focusing on wasteful uses of water such as gutter flooding, watering sidewalks and driveways, etc., and an outdoor watering policy such as watering schedules to reduce peak day impact on the system. Recycling/Reuse - The City of Kent is attending meetings with METRO on ,possible water reuse. METRO is considering a regional study to look at potential recycling/reuse opportunities. Kent will continue to examine possibilities for water reuse and recycling as a method to reducing water demands. An example would be to encourage reuse of water through water rates which provide an incentive for major industrial water users to develop treatment/reuse/recycle systems. Pressure Reduction - Pressure reduction is used throughout the City. Due to terrain, Kent's water system is comprised of five distinct pressure zones. Additionally, several of these zones are further subdivided into two or three subzones. While this provides a working pressure of 35-85 PSI throughout the system, it also makes the system very complicated and difficult to maintain. Any further breakdown of the service area will require weighing the operational integrity and reliability of the system against any conservation gain. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring and evaluating the individual conservation measures during and after implementation of the conservation plan are essential to judging the effectiveness of the plan. It is important to develop reliable data to use in analyzing the actual water use after the conservation plan has been in place for a period of time, to identify whether goals and objectives are being met. This process can identify areas of the program that need to be changed. Periodic review and evaluation to "fine tune" the plan is important. Factors such as population, growth rate, and revenue will be taken into account when an evaluation is conducted. Looking at change in population and growth rate will help determine what effect the changes have on the demand for water. Important monitoring data to keep for each conservation measure includes: 1 . The number of customers affected by the measure in each category, i.e. the number of customers who received a bill insert, brochures, read newspaper articles, etc. 2. The amount of conservation literature and /or devices distributed for each measure. -7- 3. The expected amount of savings from each of the distributed conservation devices. 4. The number of customers who actually received conservation devices or responded to offers of assistance. 5. The number of customers who actually installed the conservation devices. 6. The average water used in a specific activity by each category of customer before implementation of a conservation measure targeted for that activity and after implementation of the conservation measure. 7. Data on how changes in weather affect the demand for water in particular activities targeted for conservation measures. SUMMARY Implementation of the water conservation plan will have numerous benefits on our environment. Saving water today"will improve wildlife and fisheries habitat, increase the aesthetic and recreation value of streams and rivers, and protect water sources for meeting future demands. -8- CITY OF KENT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENT % REDUCTION IN WATER USE 1995 GOAL 2000 GOAL A. PUBLIC EDUCATION 1 1.5 1. School Outreach Small Change Theatre Presentations Tours Special Projects 2. Speakers Bureau 3. Program Promotion Lawn Watering Calendars Brochures and Information Classes and Workshops B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2-5 3 1 . Purveyor Assistance 2. Customer Assistance 3. Technical Studies Residential Indoor Water Survey Residential Water Audit Commercial/Industrial Water Audit 4. Bill Showing Consumption History C. SYSTEM MEASURES 1 1 1 . Metered System Source Service 2. Unaccounted Water/Leak Defection 3. High Technology Meters D. INCENTIVES/REQUIREMENT 2 2.5 1 . Single Family/Multi-Family Retrofit Kits 2. Nurseries/Agriculture 3. Landscape Management/Playfields 4. Conservation Pricing 5. Utility Financed Retrofit 6. Mandatory Seasonal Restrictions Water Shortage Emergency Regulations Draft Waste Water Ordinance Draft Outdoor Watering Policy 7. Recycle/Reuse 8. Pressure Reduction -9- CITY OF KENT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE BUDGET 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 A. PUBLIC EDUCATION 1. School Outreach ----------------- ------------ -------- $1,950/year Small Change Theatre ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Presentations Tours --------------------------- Special Projects 2. Speakers Bureau 3. Program Promotion $100/year Lawn Watering Calendars ----------------------------------------------- Brochures and Information -------------------------------" $8,000 -------------------------- Classes and Workshops ------------- __-__- $1,000 Conservation Library ---------------- B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1. Purveyor Assistance ---------------------------- 2. Customer Assistance ------------------------- - ---------------- ----------------------------- - 3. Technical Studies -- $5,000/survey Residential Indoor Water Survey ------------------- ----------------- $80lsf $50/mf - Residential Water Audit ----------------- $150/customer Commercial/industrial Water Audit -_- .$8,000 firstyear ---------------------------- 4.Bill Showing Consumption History $5,000/year C. SYSTEM MEASURES customer pays 1. Metered System --------------------------�----�-----'"------�----�--- Source ------------------------------------------------------- Service ---------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------- $.0351.f. 2. Unaccounted Water/Leak Detection --- — 3. High Technology Meters D. INCENTIVES/REQUIREMENT 1. Single Family/Multi-Family Retrofit -------------------------------------------------------- 2. Nurseries/Agriculture ---------------------------- 3. Landscape Management/Playfields 4. Conservation Pricing -------------------------------------------- 5. Utility Financed Retrofit --------------------------- 6. Mandatory Seasonal Restrictions Water Shortage Regulations Draft Waste Waste Water Ordinance Draft Outdoor Watering Policy ---- ---------- --------------------------- 7. Recycle/Reuse - --------------- 8. Pressure Reduction ----------------------------------------- sf--single family, inf--multi-family I.f.-linear foot ALL PROGRAMS ARE FINANCED THROUGH THE CITY OF KENT WATER FUND/CONSERVATION PROGRAM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. COSTS OTHER THAN OVERHEAD ARE SHOWN. -10- CITY OF KENT WATER CONSERVATION,PLAN BUDGET IMPACT PROGRAM ELEMENT FIRST YEAR YEARLY Public Education Small Change Theatre $ 1 ,950 $ 1 ,950 Program Promotion Lawn watering calendar 100 100 ,500 1 ,000 Conservation brochures 8 Quarterly newsletter ,000 8, 00 3 Library material - videos, books 1 ,000 00 Technical Studies Bill showing consumption history 8,000 5,000 (based on 12,500 monthly statements, initial set up $2,800, approx. $400/month) TOTAL $21,550 $16,350 PROGRAMS ARE FINANCED THROUGH THE CITY OF KENT WATER FUND CONSENT CALENDAR y. 3 . city council Action: Councilmember W V& mov", Councilmemb seconds that Consent Calendar Items A througher be a oved. Discussion Action lil-�, 7 GZ 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 4 , 1993 . 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through May 14 , 1993 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on May 18 , 1993 . . 0 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 May 4 , 1993 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Dan Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Houser, Mann, Orr and Woods, Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo and Human Resources Director Olson. Councilmembers Johnson and White were excused. Approximately 120 people were in attendance. PUBLIC Drinking Driver Task Force Design Contest. COMMUNICATIONS Lt. Rufener of the Kent Police Department noted that 1, 150 posters were entered in the 9th annual "Keep A Friend Alive" poster contest. She introduced the winners in each category, and certificates were presented to them by Mayor Kelleher and Councilmember Christi Houser. Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced that Officer Dina Paganucci of the Kent Police Department has been selected as Employee of the Month for May. He noted that she has worked as Patrol Officer, Acting Sergeant, Field Training Officer, Public Information Officer, DARE Officer and Crime Prevention Officer, and commended her on her professionalism. Lt. Rufener added that Officer Paganucci is a caring, understanding friend to the community. Regional Justice Center Update. Mayor Kelleher noted that the update on the Regional Justice Center scheduled for tonight has been cancelled by King County. odyssey of the Mind Day. Mayor Kelleher read a proclamation declaring May 5 , 1993 , as Odyssey of the Mind Day in the City of Kent. He noted that Odyssey of the Mind is an international problem solving competition and that the Division II "Folk Tales" team from Sunrise Elementary and Meridian Jr. High placed first, providing the first opportunity for a Kent school to move on to the World level. He congratulated the students and coaches who earned these honors . McDonald' s "Recycled" Restaurant Day. Mayor Kelleher noted that the McDonald ' s Restaurant located at the corner of 212th and East Valley Highway is one of only four in the United States that was built and furnished with recycled materials . He added that Fred Schultz , who owns and operates the restaurant, has become a leader in implementing state-of-the-art environmental 1 May 4 , 1993 PUBLIC programs for his restaurants, and presented him COMMUNICATIONS with the proclamation declaring April 21 (later changed to May 12) , 1993 as McDonald' s "Recycled" Restaurant Day in the City of Kent. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through M 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 April 20, 1993 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) SANITATION 80th Avenue S Paving/Repair. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Glacier Park Company for continuous operation and maintenance of 2 , 770 feet of water main exten- sion, 180 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 2 , 755 feet of street improvements, and 2 , 050 feet of storm sewers in the vicinity of 80th Avenue South, between S . 180th Street and S . 188th Street, and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Sanitary Sewer Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Paul Morford for continuous operation and maintenance of 286 feet of sanitary sewer extension and release of bonds after expiration of the main- tenance period. This project is in the alley between 2nd & 3rd Avenue, north of Cole Street, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) SANITATION Watermain Extension. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Paul Morford for continuous operation and maintenance of 327 feet of watermain extension, 320 feet of street improvements and 65 feet of storm sewer improvements and release of bonds after expira- tion of the maintenance period. This project is in the 900 block of 2nd Ave. N. , as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 2 May 4 , 1993 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Water Conservation Plan. AUTHORIZATION to set May 18 as the public hearing date on the 'City' s proposed Water Conservation Plan, which amends the City ' s existing Water Conservation Plan. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Reith/Cambridge Tank Repainting - Accept As Complete. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Olsen Brothers for the Reith Road and Cambridge Water Tank Repainting and Safety Improvements. SIDEWALKS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks. This date has been set for the public hearing on LID 342 . Public Works Director Wickstrom pointed out the location and noted that the sidewalks will be between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South, on both sides of Smith Street. He said the total project cost is $96, 926 . 50 , of which $30, 000 . 00 will be contributed by City Sidewalk funds and $66, 926 . 50 will be LID funds . He said that owners representing 53 . 57% of the LID assessments are committed via LID no protest covenants. He added that there are approximately ten properties involved and that the assessments were based on front footage on Smith Street. He explained the procedure for payment of the assessments, noting that they can be paid over a ten year period. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. BENNETT THEN MOVED that the memorandum of the Public Works Director be made a part of the record and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance creating LID 342 which calls for the installation of sidewalks along Smith Street. Orr seconded and the motion carried. CONSTRUCTION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) STANDARDS Construction Standards . This date has been set for the public hearing on the Public Works Con- struction Standards . These standards which for the most part, started out as the composition of various City adopted standards, are the results of a give-and-take process involving both a 3 May 4 , 1993 CONSTRUCTION development oriented review committee and a STANDARDS publicized call for comments. It is the Public Works Committee' s recommendation to proceed towards their adoption, if no significant comments are raised tonight; if significant comments are made, their recommendation is to refer the matter back to the Committee. City Engineer Gill noted that this document sets forth the permit requirements, the design criteria and the construction standards for all public and private roadway and utility improve- ment projects within the City and approved franchise areas. He explained how the document was developed and noted that the Construction Standards Review Committee has endorsed it, although they had concerns regarding the poten- tial economic impacts of the revised storm water standards. Gill summarized that section, and noted that the final recommendation from staff is very close to the existing King County Standards . Stan Wade, Construction Engineer, then outlined the changes made to the document. Upon the Mayor ' s question, Bill Wolinsky, Water Quality Engineer, explained that flexibility was built in to the water quality treatment requirements that allows for equivalent treatment by various tech- niques, as long as the treatment system meets the goals . Wickstrom added that certain exemptions are allowed. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MANN MOVED that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance for the adoption of the Public Works Construction Standards . Woods seconded and the motion carried. CABLE TV (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Cable TV Master Ordinance. This ordinance establishes the City' s general rights and obligations applicable to any Cable TV provider who chooses to do business within the City. City Attorney Lubovich noted that this was discussed at the last Council meeting and that no changes have been made to the document since then. 4 May 4 , 1993 CABLE TV HOUSER MOVED that Ordinance 3107 enacting a master ordinance for Cable TV compliance be adopted. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Cable TV Franchise ordinance. This ordinance grants a special franchise to TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. , for a fifteen-year term. This franchise also incorporates all the rights and liabilities, and is subject to, the City' s newly enacted Cable TV master ordinance. This ordi- nance was first introduced at the City' s last regularly scheduled Council meeting, where a public hearing on the proposed franchise was held. Lubovich noted that no changes have been made to the document since then. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker outlined some of the service enhancements, such as discounts to low income senior citizens and disabled citizens, a 5% franchise fee, government access channel, equip- ment including a portable unit, and a fiber optic network. HOUSER MOVED that Ordinance 3108 establishing a fifteen-year non-exclusive fran- chise with TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. , for the provision of cable television services to the City of Kent be adopted. Bennett seconded and the motion carried . METRO (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Metro Subsidized Bus Tickets. APPROVAL of two actions for Metro subsidized bus tickets, as recommended by the Planning Committee on April 20 , 1993 : 1) allocation of Kent ' s portion of funds, $5, 207 , as proposed in the provider allocation plan (attachment B) ; and 2) authoriza- tion for the Mayor to send a letter to Metro outlining Kent ' s approved allocation of funds . SENIOR (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) HOUSING Harrison House - Canopy & Trellis . APPROVAL of the low bid for construction of the Harrison House canopy and trellis, in the amount of $49 , 434 ( includes bid bond) , as recommended by the Operations Committee at their April 20 meeting. The budget for the project is $60, 000 , which will allow for the cost of meeting sprinkler requirements , not included in the bid amount. 5 May 4 , 1993 ELECTION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Voters Pamphlet Participation. AUTHORIZATION for the City to participate in King county' s regional voters pamphlet for the November 1993 election, as recommended by the Operations Committee. Kent candidates and issues will be included in the South King County pamphlet along with Federal, State and County candidates and issues. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Council Absences. APPROVAL of requests from Councilmembers Johnson and White for excused absences from tonight ' s meeting. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) RECREATION Performing Arts Center Pre-planning - Release of Funds. AUTHORIZATION to release $30, 000 from budgeted CIP funds for the second phase, or pre- planning phase, of the Performing Arts Center. The resulting schematic design drawings, business plan and model of the final design will be used for community selling tools for a bond issue. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Reappointments to Saturday Market Advisory Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s reappointment of Dorothy Woodruff, Midge Sweley, Helen Kubera and Marian Pagarigan to Saturday Market Advisory Board. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through April 21, 1993 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on April 30 , 1993 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 4/16-4/30 #129776/#130327 $1, 147 , 646 . 19 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 5/5/93 183043-183438 $ 279 , 003 . 26 5/5/93 Advice 6444-6757 340 , 443 . 78 $ 619 , 447 . 04 6 May 4 , 1993 REPORTS Council President. Woods announced that the Suburban Cities will meet next Wednesday in Kirkland. Parks Committee. Bennett noted that the Parks Committee has changed their meeting time to the 2nd Tuesday of the month, and the 4th Tuesday of the month if there is a specific issue to address. He added that the time will remain at 5 : 45 p.m. Administrative Reports. Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy reported that the permit process direction will appear on the next Council agenda. He also noted that negotiations with SSMD Enter- prises are going well . He suggested scheduling a workshop on May 18 at 5 : 30 p.m. to discuss the Capital Improvement Program, and it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 00 p .m. Brenda Jaco r, CMC City Clerk Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 �.. ` Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CRITICAL AREAS/WETLANDS - ORDINANCE (ZCA-91-3) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 1 of dritical kreas Ordinance No. 3loq (ZCA-91-3) , as approved by the City Council on April 20, 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (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. 3C III I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 11. 05, entitled "Wetlands Management" relating to preservation and management of wetlands within the City of Kent. WHEREAS, wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due to flooding, erosion, soil liquefaction I 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 I; pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients , and serving as settling basins jl 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 ) i for their survival , and many of which are on Washington State andi � Federal Endangered Species lists ; providing open space and visual ; relief from intense development in urbanized area ; providing !I recreation opportunities ; and serving as areas for scientific ation; and study and natural resource educ � II 'f II 1 'll I i I i I j I WHEREAS, development in wetlands may result 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 j 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 j values , and protect wetlands from degradation by stabilizing so , and preventing erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and , ` harmful or toxic substances ; moderating impacts of stormwater i 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 'i I humans and domestic animals ; and I i 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 I� I I z WHEREAS, a considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or degraded by draining, 1 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 I finds that as a result of all of the above, it is necessary to i ensure protection of wetland areas in the City by 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 land 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 City ` Code to require site planning through a regulatory system ladministered by the Public Works 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 i, upland sites ; and to achieve no net loss of wetland area by requiring restoration of degraded former wetlands or the creation ) j of new wetlands from upland sites to offset unavoidable losses; WHEREAS , the City wishes to protect the rights of individual property owners by ensuring that City wetland regulations do not arbitrarily or unfairly deprive them of use of j their land and that the burdens of these regulations are not borne disproportionately by one group of citizens ; I 3 I I �I iI WHEREAS , the City 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 reduce sprawl 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; j i WHEREAS, the City wishes to use creative zoning techniques and other mechanisms to avoid the loss of development rights in property and thereby minimize the adverse fiscal effect on the City of a loss of jobs and tax base, and encourage the production of affordable housing for all economic segments of th- ; 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 � I I) FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. There shall be a new chapter added to Title 11 of the Kent City Code, Chapter 11 . 05 , which shall read as follows: i 4 ' I, i i CHAPTER 11. 05 WETLANDS MANAGEMENT i 111. 05.010 . Short Title, Authority and Purpose !' A. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as !, the "Kent Wetlands Management Code . " �I i i B. This chapter 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 chapter is to: I I 1. 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 jcreated, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded by: ji a . impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage capacity, or impairing natural flood control functions li g P Y, p g !ithereby 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 I I H of solid waste at inappropriate sites ; creation of unstable 'ifills ; 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 li I those rare and endangered ; 5 I II I i �I i I 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; I 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 , hiking, bird watching, photographv 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 chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest ofi the public health, safety and welfare . i i i I I i i I i 11. 05.020 . Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Activity. " See "Regulated Activity" and "Allowed Activity" as defined in this section. B. "Adjacent wetland" means those wetlands bordering, contiguous or neighboring a river, stream or lake. C. "Applicant" means a person who files an application for development and who is either the owner of the i land on which that proposed Regulated Activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would i actually control and direct the proposed Regulated Activity, or the authorized agent of such a person. D. "Best management practices" means-conservation I ( 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 I I sediment ; and 2 . Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and : groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical , physical , and biological characteristics of wetlands. E. "City" means the City of Kent, Washington. F . "Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project-induced wetland and wetland buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring and contingency actions . J G. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing I project-induced wetland losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1 . Restoration. Actions performed to i reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes 7 which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a I 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 wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. H. "Dedication" means conveyance of land to the City or other not-for-profit entity by deed or other instrument of conveyance. I . "Department" means the Public Works Department of the City of Kent, unless otherwise noted. I J. "Developable area" means land outside of wetlands, wetland buffers or any other restricted area on a particular i i , piece of property. K. "Development" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure or use; or changes in the use of land that require a development permit from the city or would I otherwise alter or adversely affect a wetland or wetland buffer. L. "Director" means the Director of the Kent Public Works Department or his/her authorized designee, unless otherwise ) � noted. M. "Emergent wetland" means a wetland with at least II30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, j� herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. N. "Enhancement. " See "compensatory Mitigation. " p. "Erosion" means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of mass wasting or the movement of wind, IIwater, soil and/or ice. I 1 P. "Essential habitat" means habitat necessary for ! the survival of federally listed threatened, endangered and sensitive species and state listed priority species. Q. "Exotic" means any species of plants or animals that are foreign to the planning area. R. "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. S . "Extraordinary hardship" means that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and/or rules adopted to implement this chapter would prevent all reasonable economic use of the property . i T. "Federal Manual" means Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps of Engineers wetlands Delineation Manual , dated January 1987 . i I I (! 9 I � i i i i I U. "Forested wetland" means a wetland with at least i 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height. V. "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 I archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. I These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority. W. "Grading" means excavation or fill or any combination thereof, including the establishment of a grade I following the demolition of a structure. X. "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 . No. 20 , supplement No. 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. Y . "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 . Z . "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 j content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the Federal Manual . ) 10 i AA. "In-kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands that have characteristics which closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a Regulated Activity. BB. "Isolated wetlands" means those wetlands which: 1. Are outside of and not contiguous to any lake, river, or stream; and 2 . Have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic + vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. CC. "Maintenance, " see definition of "Repair and Maintenance. " i DD. "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; i 2 . Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using i 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 then 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 I measures . i, i 11 i EE. "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 i measures are typically individual projects which may give little consideration to regional wetlands management. FF. "Native Vegetation" means plant species which are indigenous to the planning area . GG. "offsite compensation" means to replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. HH. "On-site compensation" means to replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. II . "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 . JJ . "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 . KK. "Person" means a natural person, his/her heirs, executors , administrators or assignees, or a firm, partnership or 12 i �I I i corporation and its or their successors and assignees, or a governmental entity. LL. "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 jII domestic, commercial , industrial , agricultural , recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wildlife, j fish, native vegetation or other aquatic life. mm. "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. NN. "Priority habitats" are a seasonal range or l 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. i 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. 00. "Priority species" are those species identified by ;l the Washington State Department of. Wildlife as a Priority Species . PP. "Repair or maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable 1 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. QQ. "Restoration. " See "Compensatory Mitigation. " RR. "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. Ss . "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 11 . 05 . 140 of this Chapter. TT. "Serviceable" means presently useable. UU. "Site" means any lot or parcel of land or eof , where activities are proposed, contiguous combination ther performed or permitted. i vv. "Subject property" means the site where an activity requiring a permit or approval under this chapter will occur. WW. "Unavoidable and necessary impacts" are impacts to wetlands that remain after an applicant has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for the proposed project. XX. "Water-dependent" means requiring the use of ! surface water that would be essential to fulfill the purpose of the proposed project. yy . "Wetlands, " means all those areas in the City of i 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 I� i 14 I I I i the growing season. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial i 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 i wetland, the City of Kent shall rely on the methodology containedi in the Federal Manual as defined above. ZZ . "Wetlands of Outstanding Significance, " means wetlands designated as Unique and Fragile pursuant to Section 15 . 08 . 260 of the Kent Zoning Code, and mapped on the City ' s Hazard Area Development Limitations Map, except for the Kent Sewage Lagoon. AAA. "Wetland buffer" or "wetland buffer zone" is an I area that surrounds and protects a wetland from adverse impacts to the functions and values of a wetland. BBB. "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) . CCC. "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions in this chapter and the procedures specified in Section 11 . 05 . 040 herein. I iIi 15 i I 1 11. 05. 030 . General Provisions. A. Applicability. The requirements of this chapter apply to all activities and development occurring in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in Section 11 . 05 . 020 herein. Property located in a wetland or wetland buffer as defined in this chapter is subject to both its zoning classification regulations and to the additional requirements imposed under this chapter. In any case where there are irreconcilable differences between the provisions of the underlying zone and this chapter, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. �. i B. Protection of General Public. It is expressly they, purpose of this chapter 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 th. chapter. C. compliance by Owners . It is the specific intent of this chapter to place the obligation of complying with its I requirements upon the owner of the property or land within its scope, and no provision of, nor any term used in this chapter is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City, its officers, officials or employees . D. Eight 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 ully issued warrant, enter at land, or pursuant to a lawf reasonable times, any land subject to such consent or warrant, to ', perform the duties imposed by this chapter. i E . Liability . Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be nor shall be construed to create or form the basisll 16 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 chapter, 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 chapter, or by reason of any action or inaction on the part of the City related in any manner to the i enforcement of this chapter by its officers, officials, employees ! or agents. F. Enforcement Authority ; Administrative Procedures. 1. Enforcement. The Director is hereby designated the City Official to exercise the powers granted by this chapter. _ 2 . Administrative Procedures . Within 30 days from the adoption of this chapter, the Director shall initiate j administrative procedures necessary to carry out the requirements '! I' of this chapter. 11. 05. 040 . Lands to Which this Chapter Applies A. Geographic Scope. The boundaries within which this chapter 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 I chapter. it B. Determination of Wetland Boundary by Delineation. The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined I'I through the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition provided in Section 11 . 05 . 020 by professionals ' using the Federal Manual . II 17 i ii �I i i An applicant may request the Department to perform the delineation, provided the applicant pays the Department for all necessary expenses 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. 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 i decision of the Department may only be appealed pursuant to Section 11 . 05 . 210 . j C. Pre-application Delineation. Property owners or their agents may obtain a non-binding opinion regarding a wetland ] delineation prior to submittal of any development permit application. D. Time Limits for Delineation. A wetland delineation which has been confirmed by the Department pursuant 1 to SEPA review shall be binding upon the City and the applicant threshold 1� for one year from the date of issuance of the th determination. If a complete application for a building permit 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. 11. 05 . 050 . 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 chapter. For the purposesll of this Section, the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service ' s I Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United 11 13 I ii i 1 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, 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 I species; 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 i which is open water; or d. The presence of bogs or fens. e. Wetlands which have been designated { Unique and Fragile under the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15 . 08 . 260 �i and mapped on the City ' s official Hazard Area Development Limitations Map. II2 . 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 it in size and having three or more wetland classes ; C. Wetlands equal to or less than one acre I; that have a forested wetland class ; j d. The documented presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting sites . 19 �I j li I 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. i C. In order to obtain a permit to conduct regulated j' activities in a wetland of outstanding significance, an applicant i imust demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that application of the standards contained in this chapter would deny i all reasonable economic use of the property. 11. 05. 060 . Regulated Activities i A. No regulated activity, other than repairs and maintenance of their property by 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 approval from the Director pursuant to Section 11 . 05 . 100 . 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 i� I any kind; �I ! 2 . The dumping, discharging, or filling with any ' i material ; 3 . The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the �! water level or water table ; I j 4 . The driving of pilings ; II 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 20 it i III i i i 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 ; or 9 . The construction of 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, approval shall be required for the entire regulated i activity. The standards of this chapter shall apply only to that li 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 chapter. C. The Kent Lagoons shall be subject to this chapter with the exception of those activities allowed by Resolution No. 922 , adopted by the Kent City Council in March 1981. f 11. 07 . 070 . Allowed Activities. A. The following activities shall be allowed within a I� wetland or wetland buffer without prior approval from the Director to the extent that they are not prohibited by other local , state ( forest practices and conversions shall be governed I by Chapter 76 . 09 RCW and rules promulgated thereunder) or federal law and provided that they are conducted using best management I practices . This exemption does not apply where such activities j I 21 I I ill i i i result in the conversion of a wetland or wetland buffer to a use Ito 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; j 3 . The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that '. �I is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and it 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 ; I 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 jthat written notice at least ten days prior to the commencement of such work has been given to the Director with such exemptions li as noted in Section 11 . 05 . 060 . A and provided that wetland impacts' are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored: 22 I I 1 Normal maintenance, repair, or operation of j 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 . 11. 05. 080 . Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Approval A. Criteria for Granting a Temporary EmergencV Approval . Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter or any other laws to the contrary, the Director may issue a temporary emergency wetlands approval if. : 1 . The Director determines that an imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment will occur if j an emergency approval is not granted ; and j I) 2 . The threat or loss may occur before approval can be issued or modified under the procedures otherwise required ) by this chapter. j B. Conditions of Emergency Approval . Any emergency I approval granted shall : j j 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 I� to complete the authorized emergency activity, not to exceed 1 ninety (90) days ; and j I � I 23 I i i I i 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, approval 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. i 11. 05 . 090 . Prohibited Activities. Activities not specifically described by this chapter as Allowed or Regulated, and which do not constitute Emergency Activities under Section 11. 05 . 080 or Non-conforming Activities under Section 11 . 05. 180 are prohibited. In order to conduct an otherwise prohibited activity in a wetland or wetland buffer, thel applicant must satisfy the requirements for a special exceptioi. as described in Section 11 . 05 . 170 . 11. 05 . 100 . General 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 I has determined that it is consistent with the provisions of this chapter. B. Standards. A regulated activity in a wetland or wetland buffer shall only be approved if the proposed regulated activity, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this chapter, 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 24 II ' f� I i activity are both unavoidable and necessary, as described in Section 11. 05 . 120 , 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 noI net loss of wetland area; or 3 . Refusal to 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 of this chapter ' 1 shall be on the applicant. 2 . The applicant may be required to submit information or data, in addition to that routinely required with 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 chapter, the Director may attach to a development permit any , conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter and all other applicable laws. 4 . Nothing in this section shall be construed toy limit the Director' s authority and/or that of the Responsible official to condition or deny a project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. I� 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 2` i I! I I Wetland Approval process established herein so as to provide a timely and coordinated permit process. 6 . Where an activity regulated under this chapter also requires a Section 404 permit from the federal Army Corps of Engineers, the Department shall, to the extent practicable and feasible, coordinate the City' s approval process with the federal approval process to avoid duplication, while ensuring that all standards in this chapter are met. D. Application Requirements. Application for approval of activities in wetlands shall be in accordance with the administrative procedures to be established by the Director under Subsection 11 . o5. 030 (F) (2) 11. 05 . 110 . Wetland Buffers and Building Setback- Lines �I I i 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 11. 05 . 040 . j The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to the rating assigned to the wetland in accordance with Section 11 . 05 . 050 . I Ii B. Enhanced Wetland Buffers . iIEnhanced wetland buffers may be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where the City determines that the buffer as enhanced by the applicant will provide greater i protection of wetland functions, and as determined by the Planning Director, will serve the same function as landscaping i I Ij 26 i i that would otherwise be required pursuant to Chapter 15 . 07 of the Kent City Code. Approved landscaping vegetation must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements. 1. For Category 1 wetlands, the minimum buffer zone shall be 100 feet. i 2 . For Category 2 wetlands, the standard buffer zone shall be 50 feet. 3 . For Category 3 wetlands, the standard buffer zone shall be 25 feet. C. Building Setback Lines. A minimum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of a wetland buffer. D. 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 I' 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 I 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 lhas unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or iraptor nesting trees ; 3 . The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively preventi adverse wetland impacts ; or 27 4 . The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 15 percent. E. 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: 1 . 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 proposal minimizes disturbances caused by land uses in areas adjacent to any buffers which are reduced. l 4 . Width averaging will not adversely impact thel wetland functional values ; 5 . The total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the 11 standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 500 of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet. F. 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 . G. Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone. Regulated activities shall not be allowed in a buffer zone except ; for the following: 28 i i j i i 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. I 2 . Stormwater management facilities if designed according to 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) . I 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. 11. 05. 120 . Avoiding Wetland Impacts A. Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a I 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 . 05 . 120 (C) and 12 . 05 . 120 (D) below, the following provisions shall apply: 1 . For water-dependent activities , unavoidable i 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 I I 29 I i 1 � guidelines referenced in Section 11. 05. 110 (G) (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 not 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, j or result in less, adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer wills not accomplish the basic purpose of the project; and i 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. C. 1 . With respect to isolated Category 3 wetlands, i and isolated Category 2 wetlands which are not Category 3 wetlands only because they exceed one acre in size, the following ) applies : Regulated activities which result in the filling of no i i more than 10 , 000 square feet of a wetland may be permitted if j mitigation is provided consistent with the standards of i i Section 11 . 05 . 160 . i 2 . In computing the total allowable wetland fill , area under this subsection, the Director shall include any areas that have been filled since January 1 , 1991 . For example, if 5, 000 square feet of a wetland were filled in February, 1991, I I. 30 i i i �I future applicants would only be allowed a maximum of 5, 000 additional square feet under this subsection. Any proposed fill over 10, 000 square feet must demonstrate unavoidable and necessary impacts as described in Subsection 11 . 05. 120 (D) above. D. Fills of wetlands described in subsection I 11. 05. 120 . C, which are less than or equal to 2000 square feet andl which are necessary as part of the development of a single family residence, may be mitigated for with fees in lieu of mitigation, provided the fees are directed toward an existing mitigation bank which is owned and operated by the City. j i 11. 05. 130 . Limited Density Transfer For residential development proposals on lands containing wetland ! buffers , the Planning Department shall determine- allowable j dwelling units based on the formula below. The maximum number of Idwelling units (DU) for a lot or parcel which contains wetland ibuffers shall be equal to: (ACRES IN BUFFER) X (DU/ACRE) X (DENSITY CREDIT) Percentage of site in buffers Density Credit 1-20% 100% 21-40% 80% i 41-60% 60% � I li 61-80% 40% 81-100% 20% i I i 11. 05 . 140 . Sensitive Area Tracts A. Condition of Approval . As a condition of approval ) pursuant to this Chapter, the Director shall require creation of I i a separate sensitive area tract containing the areas determined 31 I� I i i it I I 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 that the sensitive area tract created pursuant to { subsection 11. 05. 140 .A above be protected by one of the following ''I methods : 1 . The 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 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 j condition of approval . 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. 11. 05 . 150 . 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 J C I I II 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 i challenge this notice and to have it deleted if the wetland I designation no longer applies. j 11.05. 160 . Compensating for Wetland Impacts. A. Condition of Approval . As a condition of any approval allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section 11. 05. 200 , 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 ;I applicant ' s or violator' s actions . The applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition, construction, �I Imaintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate j as nearly as practicable the original wetlands in terms of �I 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 practicable. C. Performance Standards. Compensatory mitigation shall follow a mitigation plan which includes the components listed in 11 . 05 . 160 (E) , and which is approved by the Director. All mitigation plans shall meet the following minimum performance ', standards : i 1 . Given the uncertainties in scientific knowledge and the need for expertise and monitoring, wetland I 33 i I compensatory projects may be permitted only when the Director I 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; i b. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during this period ifl 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 . D. Restoration and Creation of Wetlands and Wetlanc I Buffers . 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. Any created or restored wetlands shall be protected by the provisions of this chapter. 2 . Acreage replacement and enhancement ratio. I Wetland alterations shall be replaced or enhanced using the I formulas below. The first number specifies the acreage of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations. a. Compensation for alteration of Category 1 wetlands shall be accomplished as follows: it 34 i 1 . By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of 3 : 1 ; or 2 . By creation of new wetlands at a ratio of 1: 1 and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of 3 : 1, or 3 . By a combination of creation of new wetlands and enhancement of existing wetlands within the range of the ratios set out in subsections 1 and 2 above, so long as a minimum 1: 1 creation ratio is met ( for example, creation of new wetlands at a 1. 5 : 1 ratio along with enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of 2 . 5: 1 may be acceptable) . b. Compensation for alteration of Category 2 and 3 wetlands shall be accomplished as follows: 1 . By creation of new-wetlands at a I ratio of 1 . 5: 1 ; or 2 . By creation of new wetlands at a I ratio of 1 : 1 and by enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of 1 : 1 ; or 3 . By a combination of creation of new , wetlands and enhancement of existing wetlands within the range ofj ratios set out in subsections 1 and 2 above, so long as a minimum; 1: 1 creation ratio is met (for example, creation of new wetlands at a ratio of 1 . 5 : 1 along with enhancement of existing wetlands at a ratio of 0 . 5 : 1 may be acceptable. ) I, 4 . Decreased Replacement Ratio. The Director may decrease the required replacement ratio where the applicant I' provides the mitigation prior to altering the wetland, and a minimum acreage replacement ratio of 1 : 1 is provided. In such a I� case, the mitigation must be in place, monitored for 3 growing seasons and be deemed a success prior to allowing any alterations . 35 I� I li 5 . Wetlands Enhancement. a. Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance existing Category 3 wetlands, and ; Category 2 wetlands which are described in Section 11. 05. 120.0 in � order to compensate for wetland losses. 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 required as described in Subsection 11 . 05 . 160. D above. C. Category 1 wetlands shall not be enhanced. 6 . Wetland Type. In-kind compensation shall be provided except that, out-of-kind compensation may be accepted where: a. The wetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind-replacement will result in I a wetland with greater functional value; b. Technical problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make implementation ) of in-kind compensation impracticable ; or C. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (eg. , replacement of historically i diminished wetland types) . j 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 jecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the onsite loss ; and j I 36 jl l 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 i 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. I 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 for creation or enhancement to satisfy the requirements of Section 11 . 05 . 160 , I i applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: a. Upland sites which were formerly wetlands and significantly degraded wetlands. Such wetlands are typically (1) isolated; (2 ) have only one wetland class, and (3) one dominant plant species or a predominance of exotic species ; 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. j 10 . Timing. Where feasible, compensatory i projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb! wetlands , immediately after activities that will temporarily i 37 I I disturb wetlands, 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. i 11. Cooperative restoration Creation or Enhancement Proiects (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 i 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 shill contain at least the following components: 1 . Baseline Information. A written assessment i and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland including, at a minimum, wetland delineation ; existing wetland acreage; i 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. 38 I II 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 I 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 II I ecological , geological or hydrological criteria . 4 . Detailed Construction Plans . Written ispecifications 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 I and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. i 6 . Contingency Plan. Identification of - i potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. i ' I i 39 I II I 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 expec- cost of compensation, plus a factor to be determined to al'- inflation during the time the project is being monitored, and an I administration fee to reimburse the City for the projected costs I to be incurred by the City during the course of the monitoring program which shall not exceed ten (10) percent. 9 . Consultation with Other Agencies. Applicants are encouraged to consult with federal , state, local agencies and tribes having expertise or interest in a compensatory I mitigation proposal . 11. 05 . 170 . 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 chapter would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, development as conditioned shall be I i 40 �I I I 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 11. 05. 120 ; 2 . That no reasonable use with less impact on the wetland and its buffer is possible; 3 . That there is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed development, including reduction in density, I I 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; i 4 . That the proposed development will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland' s functional characteristics and its existing contours, vegetation, IIfish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions ; j 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, 11 sensitive, or documented priority species or priority habitats ; 7 . That the proposed development will not cause i 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 i� ' it on-site wastewater disposal ; 4l I I� i 9 . That any and all alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers will be mitigated as provided in Section 11. 05 . 160 . 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 i 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 . I 11. 05. 180 . Non-conforming Wetland Activities A non-conforming wetland activity (including uses and structures) is one which was lawful when begun, but which activity is not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. A non-conforming activity or use may be continued without the necessity of conformance to the provisions of this chapter only so long as the activity or use is not: 1 . expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way after the effective date of the provisions of this chapter, such l as to increase the extent of its nonconformity; 2 . discontinued for twelve continuous months after the effective date of the provisions of this chapter, except in cases of discontinuance for normal agricultural practices; or I I i 42 I I 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 i value of the activity at the time of damage. 11.05. 190 . commencement of Regulated Activities or Development No construction authorized by this chapter shall begin or be authorized until all necessary permits for construction have been obtained and all review and appeal. proceedings have been terminated. 11 . 05 .200 . Enforcement Procedures for investigation and notice of violation, compliance f and the imposition of civil penalties for the violation of any requirements of this chapter shall. be as specified in Chapter 15 . 10 of the Kent City Code, Enforcement of the Zoning I 1 Code. i i 11. 05. 210 . Appeals. A. The following final decisions of the Director may 1j be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, as set forth in Chapter 2 . 32 ', �i of the Kent City Code: 1 . Conditioning or denial of a development II permit on the basis of the provisions of this Chapter; or 2 . Denial of a special exception under Section 11. 05 . 170 . 3 . The Director' s delineation decision as set forth in Section 11 . 05 . 040 . E. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight ! 1 to any final discretionary decision of the Director rendered I i pursuant to this chapter. 43 it ,I C. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Section 2 . 32 . 150 of the Kent City Code within fourteen (14) days from the date the final decision is rendered. SECTION 2 . 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 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty ( 30) days from and after its i passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I I i i i i I DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: i I i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: II i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 44 i li PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of , 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I I 1 I I I 1 i i i i i j i II i I � 45 i i i i i I I I I I I 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 it I II 1 i i I i C I I i I! 1 i uetlands.ord i I � 46 i I r � 1 Kent City Council Meeting i Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES/CRITICAL AREAS - RESOLUTION (CPA-91-1) / f ry G� }1 Areas 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: of Eritical Resolution No. Ljj�L (CPA-91-1) which amends the Comprehensive Plan as approved by the City Council on April 20, 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (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 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the City- Wide Comprehensive Plan to add policies relating to critical areas. WHEREAS , the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires the City of Kent to adopt policies and procedures to protect critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission, following a series of public hearings, recommended on August 24 , 1992 , that the Kent Comprehensive Plan be amended to include policies relating to critical area protection; and WHEREAS , the City Council on April 20 , 1993 , concurred with the Planning Commission ' s recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The City-Wide Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to add to the section entitled "Public Utilities Element" , relating to Aquifer Recharge Areas, the following goal and objectives: GOAL: MAINTAIN THE HIGH QUALITY OF THE CITY 'S GROUND WATER BY PROTECTING IMPORTANT GROUND WATER RECHARGE AREAS FROM CONTAMINATION. Objective 1: Continue to participate in regional ground water management plans such as the South King County Groundwater Management Program. Objective 2 : As part of the environmental review of new development consider the impacts of new development on the _ground water recharge areas of potable water sources and require appropriate mitigation measures. Section 2 . The City-Wide Comprehensive Plan is hereby further amended to add to Goal 2 in the section of the Comprehensive Plan entitled "Human Environment Element" , relating to Geologically Hazardous Areas, the following objective: Objective 3 : As part of the environmental review of new development consider geologic hazards posed by: erosions landslides earthquakes, coal mines , volcanic activity, and other geologic hazards. Ensure that development is appropriately sited and that adequate mitigation is provided to address any geologic hazards. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 2 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, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK critarea.res 3 Kent City Council Meeting d` Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1 � 1. SUBJECT: VALLEY COM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No. /.355' , authorizing the execution of an addendum to the existing Valley Com Interlocal Agreement. betwe -t±oTr— The legal wording for the agreement was recently reviewed in light of the upcoming implementation of the County- wide 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System. The addendum simply clarifies language to match the intent and past practice of Valley Communications to hold property and enter into agree- ments with other parties. This is of particular importance in enabling Valley Communications to receive funds from the King County 800 MHz radio levy. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and addendum to the Valley Communications Center Interlocal 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief and Police Chief; Public Safety Committee (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: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing the execution of an addendum to the existing Valley Communications Center (Valley Com) interlocal agreement, to expressly state that the Center is authorized to acquire, hold and dispose of real property pursuant to RCW §39 . 34 . 030 (4) (b) and to expressly state the powers exercised by Valley Com pursuant to RCW §39 . 34 . 030 (3) (b) . WHEREAS , the participating cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila entered into an interlocal agreement on August 20 , 1976, and modified said agreement on February 11, 1985 (known hereafter as the Valley Com Agreement) to establish a public safety and emergency services communications center known as the Valley Communications Center; and WHEREAS , the participating cities, in furtherance of their goal of providing comprehensive and efficient public safety and emergency services to their respective communities, recognized the need for the development of an 800 MHz Trunked Radio System and a Mobile Data Terminal System; and WHEREAS , the benefits of the 800 MHz Trunked Radio System and Mobile Data Terminal System were intended to be expanded to a sub-regional level to integrate emergency police and fire communications for daily as well as disaster interaction; and WHEREAS , in 1992 , a county-wide levy was passed to support the regional development of an integrated, emergency radio communications network, which levy included the provision of funds to Valley Com as a sub-regional component of the regional network; and WHEREAS , before Valley Com is eligible to receive the levy funds from King County, some modifications to the Valley Com interlocal agreement must be made, NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, does hereby resolve as follows : Section 1 . That Valley Communications Center (Valley Com) is hereby authorized to acquire, hold and dispose of real property pursuant to RCW §39 . 34 . 030 (4) (b) and to exercise certain powers pursuant to RCW §39 . 34 . 030 (3) (b) . Section 2 . That the City Council approves the modifications set forth in the Addendum (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to the Valley Com Agreement and grant Valley Com the authority outlined in Section 1 and thereby ensure that Valley Com is eligible to receive levy proceeds directly from King County. Section 3 . That the Mayor of the City of Kent, as a voting member of the Administrative Board of Valley Com, be authorized to execute the Addendum to the Valley Com Agreement on behalf of the City of Kent. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1993 . 2 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1993 . 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, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK vcmod.res EXHIBIT A ADDENDUM - VALLEY COM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and first entered into the day of 1993 , by and among the undersigned municipalities, constituting municipal corporations under the laws and statutes of the State of Washington; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the participating cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila entered into an interlocal agreement on August 20th, 1976, and modified said agreement on February 11, 1985 , (known hereafter as the Valley Com Agreement) to establish a public safety and emergency services communication center known as the Valley Communications Center; and _ WHEREAS the participating cities desire to modify their agreement to expressly state that the Center is authorized to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property pursuant to RCW 39 . 34 . 030 (4 ) (b) ; and WHEREAS the participating cities desire to expressly state the powers held by the Center pursuant to RCW 39 . 34 . 030 (3) (b) ; NOW THEREFORE, by mutual consent of the parties thereto, the Valley Com Agreement is hereby MODIFIED as follows: I . Section 1 . 0 , VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER-AUTHORITY , is hereby modified as follows: 1 . 0 . VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER-AUTHORITY . There is hereby established a governmental administrative agency pursuant to RCW 39 . 34 . 030 (3) (b) to be hereafter known as the "VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, " initially consisting of the participating cities of Kent, Tukwila, Auburn and Renton, as members thereof. Said Center shall have the responsibility and authority, among others, for emergency service communications and functions incidental thereto, for the purpose of communicating and dispatching. in the furtherance of public safety and emergencies within the aforementioned member cities. In addition thereto, the Center may serve other municipal corporations (subscribing agencies) existing within the logical , physical service area and which are in need for emergency service communications. The Center shall be governed by the Administration Board, and the Center' s powers shall include, but not be limited to the powers listed below. a. Recommend action to the legislative bodies of the participating members ; b. Review and approve budget expenditures; C. Approve or disapprove budget expenditures recommended by the Center Director and_ Operations Board; d. Establish policies for expenditures of budget items for the Center; e. Review and adopt a personnel policy for the Valley Com Center; f. Establish a fund or special fund or funds as authorized by RCW 39 . 34 . 030 for the operation of the Valley Com Center; q Conduct regular meetings as may be designated by the Administration Board; h. Determine what services shall be offered and under what terms they shall be offered • i . Enter into agreements with third parties for goods and services necessary to fully_ implement the purposes of this Agreement. j_ Establish rates for services provided to other members subscribers or participatin4_agencies ; k. Direct and supervise the activities of the operations board and the Center Director; 1 . Incur debt in the name of the Center to make purchases or contract for services necessary to fully implement the purposes of this Agreement; m. Enter into agreements with and. receive and distribute funds from any federal state or local agencies ; n. Receive all funds allocated to the Center from its members; o. Reimburse the Center' s original participating members for their respective contributions for the financing of the Valley Communications Center dispatch facility together with interest assessed quarterly thereon at 8 . 75% . To purchase take, receive, lease take by gift , or otherwise acquire, own hold improve , use and otherwise deal in and with real or personal property or any interest therein in the name of the Valley Communications Center. g_ To sell convey , mortgage , pledge lease exchange, transfer and otherwise dispose of all of its property and assets. r. To sue and be sued complain and defend in all courts of competent jurisdiction in the Center ' s name ; S. To make and alter bvlaws for the administration and regulation of its affairs ; t. Enter into contracts with _f,uture participating members and subscribers to provide communications services . U. To hold radio freguency licenses to enable the Center to operate radio communications and dispatch systems to meet its public safety responsibilities . 3 II . Section 3 . 0, ADMINISTRATION BOARD, is hereby modified as follows: 3_3 The Administration Board shall be authorized to establish bylaws which govern the general operations policies of the Center. III. Section 11. 0, INVENTORY AND PROPERTY, is hereby modified as follows: 11 . 3 Ownership of Real Property Title to real property purchased or otherwise acquired shall be held in the name of the Valley Communications Center; provided however, that for valuable consideration received the Center may convev ownership of any real property as may be approved by a majority of the Administration Board 11 . 4 Method of Termination and Disposal of Real Property Upon Termination. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the date of the Agreement until terminated as set forth in Section 13 or upon agreement of at least a majority of all participating members ._ Upon termination of this Agreement all real property acguired during the life of the Agreement shall be disposed of in the followin manner: a. All real and personal property purchased pursuant to this agreement shall be distributed based on the 4 percentage of the total annual charges assessed by the Administration Board during the period of this Agreement and paid by each participating member; b. All unexpended funds or reserve funds shall be distributed based on the percentage of total annual charges assessed by the Administration Board during the period of this Agreement 'and paid by each participating member. IV. Section 20 . 0, a new section, is added as follows: 20. 0 Hold Harmless The parties to this Agreement shall defend indemnify and save one another harmless from any and all claims arising out of the performance of this Agreement , except to the extent that the harm complained of arises from the sole negligence of one of the participating members . Any loss or liability resulting from the nealigent acts errors or omissions of the Administration Board operation Board, Center Director and or staff while acting within the scope of their authority under this Agreement shall be borne by the Valley Communications Center exclusively. All other provisions in the Valley Com Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified by this document. In the event of any inconsistencies between the terms of this addendum and the Valley Com Agreement , this addendum shall be the controlling document . 5 p I Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar \ 1. SUBJECT: CIVIL VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT & ABATEMENT ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: C As recommended bV the Operations,- o-rr s Planning, and Public W Committees, doption of Ordinance No. 0b adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 1. 04 , entitled "Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement" . E This ordinance establishes a single procedure for enforcing civil violations of certain code provisions making reference to this chapter and establishes a process to obtain compliance of code violations and for abatement of the violation, if necessary. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety (3-0) Planning & Public Works Committees (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F j i I I ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to civil violations, enforcement of regulations, providing civil penalties, abatement procedures, and collection of any necessary costs by the City. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . There shall be a new chapter added to Title 1 of the Kent City Code, Chapter 1. 04 , which shall read as follows : CHAPTER 1. 04 CIVIL VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT AND ABATEMENT 1 . 04 . 010 . PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to establish an efficient system to enforce the development and use regulations of the City, to provide an opportunity for a prompt hearing and decision on alleged violations of these regulations, and to establish monetary penalties for violations. This chapter shall apply to violations of Chapter 8 . 01 (Public Nuisances) , 8 . 07 (Weeds and Vegetation) , 8 . 08 (,junk Vehicles) , and other code provisions making reference to this chapter. 1 . 04 . 020 . DEFINITIONS . As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required: A. "Abate" means to repair, replace, remove, destroy or otherwise remedy a condition which constitutes a civil violation by such means, in such a manner and to such an extent as the applicable department director determines is necessary in the interest of the general health, safety and welfare of the community. B. "Act" means doing or performing something. C. "Applicable department director" means the director of the department or his or her designee or any designated alternate empowered by ordinance or by the Mayor to enforce a City ordinance or regulation including assigned code enforcement officials . D. "Civil violation" means a violation for which a monetary penalty may be imposed as specified in this chapter. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation occurs or exists is a separate violation. E. "Development" means the erection, alteration , enlargement, demolition, maintenance or use of any structure or t__ alteration or use of any land above, at or below ground or water level , and all acts authorized by a City regulation. F. "Emergency" means a situation which in the opinion of the applicable department director requires immediate action to prevent or eliminate an immediate threat to the health or safety of persons or property. G. "Hearing Examiner" means the Kent Hearing Examiner and the office thereof established pursuant to Kent City Code, Chapter 2 . 32 . H. "Omission" means a failure to act. I . "Person" means any individual , firm, association, partnership, corporation or any entity, public or private. J. "Person responsible for the violation" means any person who has an interest in the property. 2 it i K. "Regulation" means and includes the following, as Inow or hereafter amended: 1 1. Kent City Code Chapters 8. 01 (Public IiNuisances) , 8 . 07 (Weeds and Vegetation) , 8 . 08 (Junk Vehicles) ; Ii 2 . All other code provisions making reference to this chapter; H3 . All standards, regulations and procedures I! '! adopted by the City making reference to this chapter; and 4 . The terms and conditions of any permit or : approval issued by the City, or any concomitant agreement with the City pursuant to code provisions making reference to this chapter. L. "Repeat violation" means a violation of the same regulation in any location by the same person for which voluntary compliance previously has been sought within two years or a notice of civil violation has been issued within two years. M. "Violation" means an act or omission contrary to a City regulation. 1 . 04 . 030 . VOLUNTARY CORRECTION. A. Applicability. This section applies whenever the applicable department director determines that a violation of a regulation has occurred or is occurring. B. General . The applicable department director shall attempt to secure voluntary correction by contacting the person responsible for the violation where possible, explaining the violation and requesting correction. C. Issuance of Voluntary Correction Agreement. A voluntary correction agreement may be entered into between the person responsible for the violation and the City, acting through the applicable department director. 3 i i 1. Content. The voluntary correction agreement is j I a contract between the City and the person responsible for the ) violation under which such person agrees to abate the violation ) iwithin a specified time and according to specified conditions. The ! �ivoluntary correction agreement shall include the following: li a. The name and address of the person irresponsible for the violation; and I i b. The street address or a description ), sufficient for identification of the building, structure, premises, ] or land upon or within which the violation has occurred or is occurring; and C. A description of the violation and a reference to the regulation which has been violated; and d. The necessary corrective action to be taken, and a date or time by which correction must be completed; and e. An agreement by the person responsible for the violation that the City may inspect the premises as may be necessary to determine compliance with the voluntary correction agreement; and f. An agreement by the person responsible for the violation that the City may abate the violation and recover its costs and expenses and/or a monetary penalty pursuant to this chapter from the person responsible for the violation if terms of the voluntary correction agreement are not met; and g. An agreement that by entering into the voluntary correction agreement, the person responsible for the violation waives the right to a hearing before the hearing examiner under this chapter regarding the matter of the violation and/or the required corrective action. 4 it I I I i 2 . Right to a Hearing Waived. Upon entering into ja voluntary correction agreement, the person responsible for the ; violation waives the right to a hearing before the hearing examiner under this chapter regarding the matter of the violation and/or the required corrective action. 3 . Extension--Modification. An extension of the time limit for correction or a modification of the required corrective action may be granted by the applicable department director if the person responsible for the violation has shown due diligence and/or substantial progress in correcting the violation but unforeseen circumstances render correction under the original conditions unattainable. 4 . Abatement by the City. The City may abate the violation in accordance with Section 1 . 04 . 060 if the terms of the voluntary correction agreement are not met. 5 . Collection of Costs . If the terms of the voluntary correction agreement are not met the person responsible for the violation shall be assessed a monetary penalty commencing on the date set for correction and thereafter, in accordance with Section 1 . 04 . 040 (E) , plus all costs and expenses of abatement, as set forth in Section 1 . 04 . 060 (D) . 1 . 04 . 040 . NOTICE OF CIVIL VIOLATION. A. Issuance. 1 . When the applicable department director determines that a violation has occurred or is occurring, and is unable to secure voluntary correction, pursuant to Section 1 . 04 . 030 , the applicable department director may issue a notice of civil violation to the person responsible for the violation. 2 . The applicable department director may issue a notice of civil violation without having attempted to secure 5 i ,' I voluntary correction as provided in Section 1. 04 . 030 under the following circumstances: a. When an emergency exists; or b. When a repeat violation occurs; or i C. When the violation creates a situation on condition which cannot be corrected; or d. When the person knows or reasonably should have known that the action is in violation of a City regulation; orj e. The person cannot be contacted or refuses '. to communicate or cooperate with the City in correcting the ' violation. B. Content. The notice of civil violation shall include the following: 1. The name and address of the person responsible for that violation; and 2 . The street address or description sufficie__.: for identification of the building, structure, premises, or land upon or within which the violation has occurred or is occurring; and 3 . A description of the violation and a reference to the provision (s) of the City regulation (s) which has been violated; and 4 . The required corrective action and a date and time by which the correction must be completed after which the City may abate the unlawful condition in accordance with Section 1 . 04 . 060 ; and 5 . The date, time and location of an appeal hearing before the Hearing Examiner which will be at least ten ( 10) days but no more than forty-five (45) days from the date the notice of civil violation is issued; and 6 i� I I i 6 . A statement indicating that the hearing will be canceled and no monetary penalty will be assessed if the applicable department director approves the completed, required corrective action at least forty-eight hours prior to the hearing; and j 7 . A statement that the costs and expenses of ( abatement incurred by the city pursuant to Section 1. 04 . 060 (D) and Ia monetary penalty in an amount per day for each violation as ; specified in Section 1 . 04 . 040 (E) may be assessed against the person � to whom the notice of civil violation is directed as specified and ordered by the Hearing Examiner. C. Service of Notice . The applicable department director shall serve the notice of civil violation upon the person responsible for the violation, either personally or by mailing a copy of the notice of civil violation to such person at their last known address . If the person responsible for the violation cannot be personally served within King County and if an address for mailed service cannot be ascertained, notice shall be served by posting a copy of the notice of civil violation conspicuously on the affected property or structure . Proof of service shall be made by a written declaration under penalty of perjury executed by the person effecting the service, declaring the time and date of service, the manner by which the service was made, and if by posting the facts showing that due diligence was used in attempting to serve the person personally or by mail . D. Extension. Extensions of the time specified in the notice of civil violation for correction of the violation may be granted at the discretion of the applicable department director or by order of the Hearing Examiner. E. Monetary Penalty. The monetary penalty for each violation per day or portion thereof shall be five hundred dollars ($500 . 00) . 7 F. Continued Duty to Correct. Payment of a monetary penalty pursuant to this chapter does not relieve the person to whom the notice of civil violation was issued of the duty to , correct the violation. G. Collection of Monetary Penalty. 1. The monetary penalty constitutes a personal obligation of the person to whom the notice of civil violation is directed. Any monetary penalty assessed must be paid to the City within ten calendar days from the date of mailing of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision or a notice from the City that penalties are due. 2 . The City Attorney or his/her signee is authorized to take appropriate action to collect the monetary penalty. 1 . 04 . 050 . HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER. A. Notice. A person to whom a notice of civil violation is issued will be scheduled to appear before the Hearing Examiner not less than ten (10) calendar days but no more than forty-five (45) days after the notice of civil violation is issued. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the applicable department director. B. Prior Correction of Violation. The hearing will be canceled and no monetary penalty will be assessed if the applicable department director approves the completed required corrective action at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled hearing. C. Procedure. The Hearing Examiner shall conduct a hearing on the civil violation pursuant to the rules of procedure of the Hearing Examiner. The applicable department director and the person to whom the notice of civil violation was directed may 8 i participate as parties in the hearing and each party may call witnesses. The City shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred and that the required corrective action will correct the violation. The determination of the applicable department director as to the , need for the required corrective action shall be accorded ( substantial weight by the Hearing Examiner in determining the 1ireasonableness of the required corrective action. D. Decision of the Hearing Examiner. 1 . The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the City has established by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation has occurred and that the required correction will correct the violation and shall affirm, vacate, or modify the City' s decisions regarding the alleged violation and/or the required corrective action, with or without written conditions . 2 . The Hearing Examiner shall issue an order to the person responsible for the violation which contains the following information: a. The decision regarding the alleged violation including findings of fact and conclusions based thereon in support of the decision; b. The required corrective action; C. The date and time by which the correction must be completed; d. The monetary penalties assessed based on the criteria in Section 1 . 04 . 050 (D) (3 ) ; e . The date and time after which the City may proceed with abatement of the unlawful condition if the required correction is not completed. 9 l� I I i '� i i i i 3 . Assessment of Monetary Penalty. Monetary jpenalties assessed by the Hearing Examiner shall be in accordance with the monetary penalty in section 1 . 04 . 040 (E) . a. The Hearing Examiner shall have the ( following options in assessing monetary penalties: ff i. Assess monetary penalties beginning f lion the date the notice of civil violation was issued and ! thereafter; or ii. Assess monetary penalties beginning on the correction date set by the applicable department director or an alternate correction date set by the Hearing Examiner and thereafter; or iii . Assess less than the established monetary penalty set forth in Section 1. 04 . 040 (E) based on the criteria of Section 1 . 04 . 050 (D) (3) (b) . iv. Assess no monetary penalties . b. In determining the monetary penalty assessment, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors: i . Whether the person responded to staff attempts to contact the person and cooperated with efforts to correct the violation; ii . Whether the person failed to appear at the hearing ; iii . Whether the violation was a repeat violation; iv. Whether the person showed due diligence and/or substantial progress in correcting the violation; V. Whether a genuine code interpretation issue exists ; and vi . Any other relevant factors . 10 i I, i i C. The Hearing Examiner may double the monetary penalty schedule if the violation was a repeat violation. j In determining the amount of the monetary penalty for repeat violations the Hearing Examiner shall consider the factors set forth in Section 1. 04 . 050 (D) (3) (b) . i 4 . Notice of Decision. The hearing examiner shall mail a copy of the decision to the person to whom the notice of a j , civil violation was issued and to the applicable department !Idirector within ten (10) working days of the hearing. E. Failure to Appear. If the person to whom the notice of civil violation was issued fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the examiner will enter an order with findings pursuant to Section 1 . 04 . 050 (D) (2) and assess the appropriate monetary penalty pursuant to Section 1. 04 . 050 (D) ( 3 ) . The City will enforce the Hearing Examiner' s order and recover all related expenses, plus the cost of the hearing and any monetary penalty from that person. F. Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with superior Court within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the Hearing Examiner ' s decision was personally served upon or was mailed to the person to whom the notice of civil violation was directed, or is thereafter barred. 1 . 04 . 060 . ABATEMENT BY THE CITY . A. The City may abate a condition which was caused by or continues to be a civil violation when: 1 . The terms of voluntary correction agreement pursuant to Section 1. 04 . 030 have not been met; or 2 . A notice of civil violation has been issued pursuant to Section 1 . 04 . 040 and a hearing has been held pursuant 11 i i� it l`I ! to Section 1. 04 . 050 and the required correction has not been completed by the date specified in the Hearing Examiner' s order; or 3 . The condition is subject to summary abatement las provided for in Section 1. 04 . 060 (B) . I H B. Summary Abatement. Whenever any violation of a { regulation causes a condition the continued existence of which constitutes an immediate and emergent threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the City may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such : abatement, including the reason for it shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after the abatement. C. Authorized Action by the City. Using any lawful means, the City may enter upon the subject property and may remove or correct the condition which is subject to abatement. The C]*-v may seek such judicial process as it deems necessary to effect L.:e removal or correction of such condition. D. Recovery of Costs and Expenses . The costs, including incidental expenses, of correcting the violation shall be billed to the person responsible for the violation and/or the owner, lessor, tenant or other person entitled to control , use and/or occupy the property and shall become due and payable to the City within ten calendar days. The term "incidental expenses" includes but is not limited to personnel costs , both direct and indirect, including attorney' s fees ; costs incurred in documenting the violation; hauling, storage and disposal expenses; and actual expenses and costs of the City in preparing notices, specifications and contracts, and in accomplishing and/or contracting and inspecting the work; and the costs of any required printing and mailing. 12 it III E. Interference. Any person who knowingly obstructs, j impedes, or interferes with the City or its agents, or with the person responsible for the violation in the performance of duties imposed by this chapter, or a decision and order issued by the I� Hearing Examiner or an agreement between the City and the person ijresponsible for the violation, is guilty of a misdemeanor. I 1. 04 . 070 . Alternative Abatement Procedure. Any property on which violations of this chapter remain uncorrected after issuance of a notice of violation may, in addition to the procedures outlined above, be abated in accordance with the following additional procedures pursuant to RCW 35 . 21 . 310 : A. When requested by the applicable department director and approved by the hearing examiner, the matter of a pending violation may be submitted to the City Council for consideration whenever the violation consists of debris upon property constituting a fire hazard or a menace to public health, safety or welfare. In such instance, the procedures set forth in Sections 1. 04 . 030 through 1 . 04 . 060 shall be complied with to the extent not in conflict herein except that the decision of the hearing examiner pursuant to Section 1 . 04 . 050 (D) shall be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council . This alternate procedure may be requested by the applicable department director at any time prior to the hearing before the hearing examiner and only if the hearing examiner makes a finding that the violation constitutes a fire hazard or a menace to public health, safety or welfare requiring removal or destruction of the debris constituting the violation . After consideration, the Council may, by resolution, either accept, reject or modify the hearing examiner ' s recommendation and require the property owner to abate the 13 i i I i I I ' on violation by removal or destruction, at his or her cost and expense, within a time specified in the resolution. B. The resolution shall not be passed until the : property owner is given at least five (5) days ' notice of the pendency of the proposed resolution. Such notice shall be servedll � by the applicable department director pursuant to Kent City codef 1. 04 . 040 (C) . The notice, either accompanied with or incorporated ; I into the hearing examiner' s recommendation, shall describe the it property involved, the nature of the hazardous condition, thei corrective action required, and the date of the Council meeting during which the matter will be considered. C. If the nuisance is not abated by the property owner within the time fixed in the resolution, the applicable department director may abate the same and mail a bill to the property owner covering the cost to the City of such abatement, including the applicable department director' s expense. If the property own-2 fails or refuses to pay the bill immediately, the applicable department director shall file a lien therefor against the property, which lien shall be in the same form, filed with the same officer and within the same time and manner and enforced and foreclosed as is provided by law for liens for labor and material . 1 . 04 . 080 . ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES . The provisions of this chapter are not exclusive, and may be used in addition to other enforcement provisions authorized by the Kent City Code except as precluded by Law. 1 . 04 . 090. CONFLICTS . In the event of a conflict between this chapter and any other provision of the Kent City Code or City ordinance providing for a civil penalty, this chapter shall 14 it l I i control. Provisions of the Public Safety Code, Title 9 , do not � i apply to this chapter. 1. 04 . 100 . MEANING OF TERMS . For the purposes of this code, whenever "civil infraction" and "civil penalty" are used in iany code, ordinance or regulation of the City, these terms shall be deemed to have the same meaning as the terms civil violation and imonetary penalty, respectively, as used herein. 1. 04 . 110. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this chapter and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 2 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty ( 30) days after its passage, approval and publication . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 15 I i' i i! III I I PASSED the day of 1993 . ( APPROVED the day of 1993 PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . ii I 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 civlviol.ord 16 V Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 \ ' Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC NUISANCES - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: recommended by the Operations Committee, gdoption of rdinance No. ,�,/// amending Chapter 8. 04 of the Kent City Code r lating to litter control by repealing a section relating to abat ment, and by providing for civil penalties and further re ealing Chapter 8. 01 of the Kent City Code regarding public nui ances and adding a new chapter to be titled "Public Nuisances" . This ordinance updates types of nuisances and provides for enforcement of nuisance violations through Chapter 1. 04 , Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G i I II I I f ORDINANCE NO. 1 I ' AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to public nuisances as the same constitutes a fire, safety or health hazard, amending Chapter 8 . 04 of the Kent City Code relating to litter I� control by repealing section relating to abatement and by providing for civil penalties; repealing Chapter 8 . 01 of the Kent City Code in its entirety and adding a new chapter to be titled "Public Nuisances" . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Kent City Code (KCC) Section 8 . 04 . 110 entitled "Clearing of Litter from Open Private Property by City" is repealed in its entirety. Section 2 . KCC Section 8 . 04 . 120 entitled "Alternative or Accumulative Methods of Collection of Charge" is repealed in its entirety. Section 3 . There shall be a new section added to Chapter 8 . 04 of the Kent City Code (KCC) which shall read as follows: 8 04 190 Violation - Penalty. A. Every person entity, or corporation violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty,_ deemed to be an infraction in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100 00) for each such violation._ �j I i it i �I I Each day the violation exists shall be considered a separate violation. I B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 1 O1 140 of the Kent City Code. section 4 . Kent City Code (KCC) Chapter 8 . 01 (Ord. 1970 as codified by Ord. 3080) is repealed in its entirety: Section 5 . There is hereby added a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 8 . 01, as follows: CHAPTER 8 . 01 PUBLIC NUISANCES Sec. 8 . 01 . 010 . Definitions . A. "Abate" means to repair, replace, remove, destroy or otherwise remedy a condition which constitutes violation of this chapter by such means and in such a manner and to such an extent as the applicable department director determines is necessary in the interest of the general health, safety and welfare of the community. B. "Building materials" means and includes lumber, plumbing materials, wallboard, sheet metal , plaster, brick, cement, asphalt, concrete block, roofing material , cans of paint and similar materials. C. "Director" means the director of the department in charge of code enforcement or his or her designee or any designated alternate who is empowered by ordinance or by the 2 I, l i I i i I i II Mayor to enforce this chapter including assigned code enforcement officials. D. "Person" means any individual firm, association, + partnership, corporation or any other entity, public or private. E. "Premises" means any building, lot, parcel, real i estate or land or portion of land whether improved or unimproved, including adjacent sidewalks, public rights of way, and parking ;( e, river, stream, drainage way or wetland. strips and any lak 8 . 01. 020 . Prohibited Conduct. It is a violation of this chapter for any person to permit, create, maintain, or allow, upon any premises, any of the acts or things declared in Section 8 . 01. 030 to be a public nuisance. 8 . 01 . 030. Types of Nuisances. Each of the following conditions, unless otherwise permitted by law, is declared to constitute a public nuisance, and whenever the director determines that any of these conditions exist upon any premises, the director may provide for the abatement thereof and monetary penalties may be assessed pursuant to Kent City Code 1 . 04 , Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement: A. The existence of any trash, dirt, filth, the carcass of any animal , manure or rubbish, accumulation of yard trimmings , excluding properly maintained yard compost, or other matter which is offensive to a reasonable person; except for such yard debris that is properly contained and concealed as not to affect the health, safety or depreciation of adjoining property for the purpose of composting; or 3 i i B. Erecting, maintaining, using, placing, depositing, leaving or permitting to be or remain in or upon any premises, which may be viewed or smelled from without the premises, or in I or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, parkway or other public or private place in the city, any one or more of the ( rbing, unsanitary, fly-producing, rat- following disorderly, distu j harboring, disease-causing places, conditions or things: j I� 1. Any putrid, unhealthy or unwholesome bones, ! meat, hides, skins, the whole or any part of any dead animal , ; fish or fowl , or waste parts of fish, vegetable or animal matter in any quantity; but nothing herein shall prevent the temporary retention of waste in approved covered receptacles; or 2 . Any privies, vaults, cesspools, open containers of stagnant water, sumps , pits or like places which are not securely protected from flies and rats, or which are malodorous ; or 3 . An accumulation of material including, but not limited to bottles, cans, glass, plastic, ashes, scrap metal , wire bric-a-brac, broken stone or cement, broken crockery, broken glass, broken plaster, litter, rags , empty barrels, boxes, crates, packing cases, mattresses , bedding, packing hay, straw or other packing material or building materials on any premises which not properly stored or neatly piled or is offensive to a reasonable person or in which flies or rats may breed or multiply ; or 4 . Accumulation of any litter, garbage, trash, refuse and/or rubbish. 5 . The keeping, using or maintaining of any pen, stable, lot, place or premises in which any hog, cattle or fowl may be confined or kept in such a manner as to be nauseous , foul or offensive. 4 I, �I i i C. The existence of any fence or other structure on private property abutting or fronting upon any public street, sidewalk or place which is in a sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed or other dilapidated or unsafe condition; or D. The existence of wrecked or disassembled trailers, house trailers, boats, tractors or other vehicle, appliance or machinery of any kind, or any major parts thereof; or E. The existence on any premises of any abandoned or unused well, pit, shaft, cistern or storage tank without first demolishing or removing from the premises such storage tank, or securely closing and barring any entrance or trapdoor thereto or without filling any well, pit, shaft or cistern or capping the same with sufficient security to prevent access thereto; or F. The existence in a place accessible to children of any attractive nuisance dangerous to children, including but not limited to any abandoned, broken or neglected equipment, machinery, refrigerator, freezer, or other large appliance. G. Dense smoke, noxious; fumes , gas and soot, or cinders , in unreasonable quantities . H. All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks within a reasonable time after the snow and ice has ceased to be deposited thereon. I . All trees, hedges, billboards, fences or other obstructions which prevent persons from having a clear view of traffic approaching an intersection from cross streets in sufficient time to bring a motor vehicle driven at a legal speed to a full stop before the intersection is reached. J . Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free use of the streets or sidewalks . This subsection shall not 5 ,II i II apply to events, programs or parades authorized by the city council . i K. Any poisonous or harmful substance which is reasonably accessible to persons or to animals. L. The keeping or harboring of any animal which by I! yelping, barking or the making of frequent or habitual howling other noises, or the keeping or harboring of any fowl which by j frequent habitual crowing or the making of other noises shall annoy or disturb a neighborhood or any considerable number of persons. M. Every building or unit within a building used for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, delivering, selling, storing or giving away any controlled substance as defined in Chapter 69 . 50 RCW, legend drug as defined in Chapter 69 . 41 RCW, or imitation controlled substance as defined in Chapter 69 . 52 RCW, and every building or unit within a building wherein or upon which such acts take place. N. soils contaminated by dangerous wastes, hazardous substances or hazardous wastes as those terms are defined in RCW 70 . 105 . 010 . 8 . 01 . 040 . Authorized Act Not a Public Nuisance. No act which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute or ordinance can be deemed a public nuisance. 8 . 01 . 050 . Violation - Penalty. A. Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under Kent City Code Chapter 1 . 04 for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein. 6 I' B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person who i, violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a I ,I misdemeanor pursuant to Section 1 . 01 . 140 of the Kent City Code. C. As an alternative to any other penalty provided in i 1this chapter, pursuant to a violation of Kent City Code i, 8 . 01. 030 (M) , abatement proceedings may be instituted under Chapter 7 . 43 RCW. Section 3 . 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 validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4 . 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 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 7 i I� I i PASSED day of 1993 . i ( APPROVED day of 1993 . 11 PUBLISHED day of 1993 . 'i 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. pubmi s.ord B L' I' Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1 1. SUBJECT: DISPOSITION OF JUNK VEHICLES - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommends by i-he Committee, gidoption of Ordinance No. 11 adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 8 . 08 , entitled "Junk Vehicles" . This ordinance provides procedures for the removal of junk vehicles as authorized by RCW 46 . 55. 240 as public nuisances. Enforcement of this chapter is through Chapter 1. 04 , Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3H i (I I I 1 i I I it ORDINANCE NO. j AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, concerning the disposition of junk vehicles on private property, declaring them to be public nuisances and providing a method for abatement and removal , all as authorized by RCW 46 . 55 . 240 . WHEREAS , RCW 46 . 55 . 240 provides authority for the City of Kent to adopt a local ordinance relating to the disposition of junked vehicles located or stored on private property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . There shall be a new chapter added to the Kent City Code, Title 8 , which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 8 . 08 JUNK VEHICLES 8 . 08 . 010 . Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the character and safety of the City ' s neighborhoods by eliminating - 1 - i i as nuisances, junk vehicles from private property, and to provide Iprocedures for the removal of junk vehicles as authorized by RCW � 46. 55. 240. 8 . 08 . 020 . Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the following meaning: A. "Director" means the director of the department in charge of code enforcement or his or her designee or any designated alternate who is empowered by ordinance or by the Mayor to enforce this chapter including assigned code enforcement officials. B. "Junk vehicle" means any vehicle substantially meeting all of the following requirements: (RCW 46 . 55. 010 (4) ) 1 . Is three years old or older; and 2 . Is extensively damaged, such damage including, but not limited to any of the following: a broken window or windshield or missing wheels, tires, motor or transmission; and 3 . Is apparently inoperable; and 4 . Is without a valid, current registration plate ; and 5 . Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it. C. "Landowner" means an owner of private property, or a person in possession or control of private property. 8 . 08 . 030 . Public Nuisance Declared. All junk vehicles certified as such by a law enforcement officer or code enforcement officer designated by the 2 - I i I i director according to RCW 46. 55. 230 and found on private property , are declared to constitute a public nuisance subject to removal , impoundment and disposal . It is unlawful for any individual (I firm, entity or corporation to allow, cause to allow or place a junk vehicle on any premises. 1 I j 8 . 08 . 040 . Exemptions. i A. A vehicle or part thereof which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property; or B. A vehicle or part thereof which is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler or licensed vehicle dealer and is fenced according to the provisions of RCW 46. 80 . 130 . 8 . 08 . 050 . Abatement and Removal of Junk Vehicles on Private Property. A. Voluntary Correction . Whenever the code enforcement officer determines that a vehicle is a public nuisance and in violation of this chapter, a reasonable attempt shall be made to secure voluntary correction from the landowner and the vehicle ' s registered owner . B. Issuance of Notice of Civil Violation. If the code compliance officer does not obtain voluntary correction of the public nuisance, the officer may issue a notice of civil violation to the landowner and the vehicle ' s registered owner in accordance with the provisions of Kent City Code 1 . 04 . 040 . C. Content. For violations of this chapter the notice of civil violation shall contain the following information : 3 - I ail i 1. The name and address of the landowner upon I1whose property the vehicle is located; and 2 . The name and address of the vehicle ' s last registered owner of record provided license or vehicle �lidentification numbers are available; and 3 . The vehicle description including: the ( license plate number and/or the vehicle identification number; the model year; the make; and the factors which render the ;, vehicle a public nuisance; and 4 . The street address of a description sufficient for identification of the property where the vehicle is located; and 5. The required corrective action and a date and time by which the correction must be completed; and 6 . The date, time and location of a hearing before the hearing examiner on the question of abatement and removal of the vehicle or part thereof as a public nuisance which will be at least ten (10) days but no more than forty-five (45) days from the date the notice is issued; and 7 . A statement indicating that the hearing will be canceled and no monetary penalty will be assessed if the required corrective action is completed at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled hearing; and 8 . A statement indicating that the city may remove, impound and dispose of the vehicle, and assess all costs and expenses of administration, removing, impounding and disposing of the vehicle against the landowner or the registered owner as ordered by the hearing examiner; and 9 . A statement that a monetary penalty pursuant to Section 1 . 04 . 040 (E) in an amount per day for each violation - 4 - 'I i i shall be assessed against the landowner and/or the vehicle ' s registered owner as specified and ordered by the hearing examiner ] in accordance with Section 1. 04 . 040 . D. Service of Notice. The notice shall be mailed by ' �Icertified mail , with a five day return receipt requested, to the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and legal owner of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification numbers are not available to determine ownership. E. Landowner Responsibility Disclaimer. The landowner may appear in person at the hearing or present a written statement prior to the hearing, to deny responsibility for the vehicle ' s presence on the property. If the hearing examiner determines that the vehicle was placed on the property without the landowner' s consent and that the landowner has not subsequently acquiesced in its presence, then the costs and expenses of administration, removing, impounding and disposing of the vehicle shall not be assessed against the landowner or otherwise attempted to be collected from said landowner. F . Removal by the City . Pursuant to the hearing examiner ' s orders , the vehicle or part thereof may be removed at the request of a law enforcement officer, the City may use any lawful means to cause the vehicle to be removed from the private property and disposed of to a licensed motor vehicle wrecker or hulk hauler or scrap processor, with notice to the Washington State Patrol and the Washington Department of Licensing that the vehicle has been wrecked. G. Recovery of Costs and Expenses . 1 . The costs of removal and disposal shall be assessed against the last registered owner if the identity of the - 5 - i I I I III I owner can be determined unless the owner in the transfer of ownership complied with RCW 46. 12 . 101, or against the owner of Ithe property on which the vehicle is stored, or both. If both 1 the owner of the vehicle and the property owner are assessed the costs of removal , then liability for the costs shall be their joint and separate obligation. 2 . The costs of administration and of removal and disposal of the vehicle may be recovered pursuant to KCC 1. 04 . 060 (D) . H. Conflict of Provisions . The notice and related requirements of this section, KCC 8 . 08 . 050, are intended to supplement those of KCC 1. 04 . 040 , however, should a conflict exist, the provisions of KCC 8 . 08 . 050 shall prevail . 8 . 08 . 060 . Violation - Penalty. A. Any violation of any provision of this chapter a civil violation as provided for in Kent City Code, Chapter 1 . 04 , for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein. B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 1 . 01 . 140 of the Kent City Code. 8 . 08 . 070 . Rules and Procedures . The applicable department director in charge of enforcement of this chapter may adopt such rules as may be necessary to effectively implement and administer this chapter. 6 - I�i li i I Section 2 . If any one or more section, paragraph or [; sentence of this chapter are held to be unconstitutional or i� jinvalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this chapter and the same shall remain in Mull force and effect. Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take ; jj effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication 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 . 7 - i I I i 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 I Kent as hereon indicated. I (SEAL) I' BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I� ii junkvehL ord 8 - i �l v Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WEEDS & VEGETATION - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations and- Public Public Works Committees, Adoption of O i`nance No. 3 i 13 adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code enti led "Weeds and Vegetation" identifying certain conditio of vegetation as public nuisances, and providing procedure for removal of vegetation constituting public nuisances.v This ordinance also provides that enforcement of this chapter is through Chapter 1. 04 of the Kent City Code, Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety (3-0) and Public Works Committees (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I i i ORDINANCE NO. � I t AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the I) City of Kent, Washington relating to the maintenance, trimming, removal or destruction of vegetation and weeds on private property and adjoining planting strips and alleys as the same constitutes a fire, health or safety hazard; providing civil penalties, and abatement; amending K. C. C. by the addition of a new chapter 8 . 07 . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. There shall be a new chapter added to the Kent City Code, Title 8 , which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 8 . 07 WEEDS AND VEGETATION 8 . 07 . 010 . Short Title and Purpose . A. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Weeds and Vegetation Ordinance" of the City of Kent. The general purpose of the ordinance is to exercise the City , s police power for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare; to provide enforcement mechanisms and the abatement and collection of abatement expenses by the City, and to these ends the ordinance shall be liberally construed. B. This ordinance shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety and welfare of the general public, not for the benefit of any particular person or class of persons . C. It is the intent of this ordinance to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon the owner orI I occupier of the land and buildings within the scope of this ordinance. No provision or term used in this ordinance is intended ] to impose any duty upon the City or any of its officers, officials and employees which would subject them to damages in a civil ) action. i 8 . 07 . 020 . Definitions. Definitions used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings , unless an additional meaning clearly appears from the context. A. "Alley" means a public way, paved or unpaved, which is intended to provide or which provides a roadway for vehicular and pedestrian access to abutting properties and is genera71v located to the rear or side of those properties , but not including such a public way in its natural and undeveloped state which cannot be used by vehicles . B. "Director" means the Director of Public Works or his or her designee or any designated alternate who is empowered by ordinance or by the Mayor to enforce this chapter including assigned code enforcement officials . C. "Fire Hazard" means vegetation which is dry and combustible, including but not limited to weeds, grass or clippings, dead bushes or trees or their parts, and other combustible vegetative materials. D. "Health Hazard" means vegetation or refuse providing a harborage for rats or other rodents (excluding chipmunks and squirrels) , rodent runs and habitats ; vegetation which is poisonous or noxious , including but not limited to poison ivy, poison oak, poison hemlock, poison sumac and nightshade; vegetation which 2 i i I� I� creates a danger of contamination or disease; and vegetation which,: is infested with caterpillars or other horticultural pests. E. "Occupant" means any person occupying or having possession of property or any portion thereof. F. "Owner" means any person who, alone or with others, ' 11 has title or interest in property with or without accompanying, i actual possession thereof, and including any person who as agent, or as executor, administrator, trustee or guardian of an estate, has charge, care or control of any property. G. "Person" means any individual , partnership, corporation, trust, unincorporated or incorporated association, marital community, joint venture, governmental entity, or other entity or group of persons however organized. H. "Planting strip" means that part of a street right- of-way between the abutting property line and the curb or traveled portion of the street, exclusive of any sidewalk. I . "Property" means a specific parcel or parcels, platted or unplatted, of land or real estate. J. "Public right of way" means any alley, street, planting strip and public way, including sidewalks, utilized for and related to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. K. "Safety Hazard" means vegetation which creates a defective condition on any street, sidewalk, or alley as set forth in Kent City Code 6 . 04 . 100 ( 3 ) and (4 ) or vegetation which overhangs the street, sidewalk, or alley in such a way as to impede the free and full use of the street, sidewalk, or alley, and vegetation which obstructs the vision of drivers such that traffic regulation signs or the view of oncoming traffic is obstructed at a distance of fifteen feet or closer from the edge of the pavement or curb, and vegetation which creates injury to or the opportunity or risk for injury to passersby or the general public. 3 i I. i I i I, I L. "Sidewalk" means that property between the curb lines or the lateral lines of a street and the adjacent property, set aside and intended for the use of pedestrians- M. "Street" means a public right of way, used fori public travel . N. "Vegetation" means trees, shrubs, grass, weeds, , bushes, vines, and other plant materials, including but not limited ; to clippings, fallen leaves, fruit or branches. ( ( net Faean Fn« street + ) ) 8 . 07 . 030 . Nuisances Designated. The following conditions are hereby declared nuisances within the City of Kent: A. Vegetation constituting a fire hazard; B. Vegetation constituting a health hazard; C. Vegetation constituting a safety hazard. 8 . 07 . 040 . Exemptions. The following are exempt from the application of this chapter: A. official city street trees as set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 6 . 10 . B. Wetlands , critical areas and natural resource lands designated or to be designated for protection under the Kent City Code pursuant to the Growth Management Act Chapter 36 . 70A of the Revised Code of Washington. 8 . 07 . 050 . Duties of owners and occupants. A. Subject to subsection (C) below, it is the duty of the owner of property and of any occupant of the property wherein 4 or whereon any nuisance exists to abate the nuisance by destroying, ) removing or trimming vegetation, and removing or destroying any health, safety or fire hazard and to remove all shrubs, bushes, trees or vegetation growing or which has grown and died which is a ' fire hazard or is infested with caterpillars or other horticultural ' .! pests, or which otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, ! i� safety or welfare. j� B. In addition to the duties the owner or occupant may have to abate nuisances, subject to subsection (C) below, the owner or occupant of property shall : 1 . Remove vegetation in or on an abutting sidewalk; 2 . Destroy, remove or trim vegetation or parts thereof on the property, and which are also overhanging any public place at a distance of less than eight feet (81 ) measured vertically from any point on the sidewalk. 3 . Destroy, remove or trim vegetation or any parts thereof on the property or on adjacent planting strips, which encroaches on or overhangs the traveled portion of the street or alley within sixteen and one-half feet ( 16 . 51 ) measured vertically from any point on the street or alley. 4 . Remove all grass and weeds attaining a height of six (6) inches, except on property zoned agricultural , and all shrubs, bushes, trees or vegetation growing or which has grown and died which is a fire hazard or is infested with caterpillars or other horticultural pests, or which otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or welfare. 5 . Remove vegetation found on adjacent planting strips constituting a public nuisance as defined in Section 8 . 07 . 030 . 5 li II C. Tree Removal . No person shall remove any trees situated upon a public right of way pursuant to this section, �II 8 . 07 . 050, without first obtaining a permit in accordance with I Section 8 . 07 . 090. 111 i i 8 . 07 . 060 . Enforcement. It shall be the duty of the director to enforce this j ordinance. The director may call upon the police, fire, health or ', I! other appropriate City departments to assist in enforcement. The director shall adopt such rules as are necessary for the " .administration of this ordinance. 8 . 07 . 070 . Right of Entry. Upon presentation of the proper credentials, the director or duly authorized representative may, with the consent of the owner or occupier of a building or the premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant, enter at reasonable times any property subject to the consent or warrant to perform the duties imposed by this chapter. 8 . 07 . 080 . Violation - Penalty. A. Any violation of any provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under Kent City Code Chapter 1 . 04 for which a monetary penalty may be assessed and abatement may be required as provided therein. B. In addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 1 . 01. 140 of the Kent City Code . 6 I li I 8 . 07 . 090 . Permit Required - Tree Removal . I A. Any person desiring to remove any tree on a public ' right of way, including undeveloped and/or unopened public rights' of way not currently used for pedestrian or vehicular traffic, ' shall make application in writing to the director for a permit to ! i �i do so. A permit may be issued only when: 1. The tree constitutes a fire, safety and/or health hazard as defined in this chapter; and 2 . The applicant has executed a hold harmless agreement in a form satisfactory to the director, indemnifying the City from claims as a result of applicant ' s removal of said tree. B. The provisions of this chapter do not preclude the City from removing or maintaining any vegetation, including trees, in public rights of way if it deems it appropriate to do so and no such action will create an obligation on the city to maintain such vegetation. Section 2 . 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 validity of :its application to other persons or circumstances . Section 3 . 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 7 ill II I ATTEST: i i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 13 I 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM: li 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. ueeds.ord 8 I. I n iy Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 l Category Consent Calendar r 1. SUBJECT: LID 342 - SMITH STREET SIDEWALKS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 31I creating LID 342 for the installation of sidewalks along Smith Street from West Valley Highway to 64th Avenue S. , as discussed at the City Council meeting of May 4 , 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director, excerpt of May 4 City Council minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Cmt (3-0 vote) & City Council (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. 3J In response to John Kiefer ' s question as to whether he would be charged this fee of $16 . 71, Gill stated that if Kiefer short platted his five acre piece, or chooses to develop it in any way which requires a connection to the 10" line, then the charge would be added to the water meter permit fees . Committee agreed to recommend that Council authorize Public Works to establish a charge in lieu of assessment on the distribution main. Smith Street Sidewalks. Gill explained that as previously discussed, there was a request from the Catholic Youth Services organization on Smith St. west of the West Valley Highway, that the City review the possibility of forming an L. I. D. for the installation of sidewalks along Smith. Gill stated that this"was brought forward to the Committee and it was agreed because there was a substantial lack of interest from some of the abutting property owners in participating in this project, based on the possible assessments, that we would go back to those property owners with a second proposal with the City contributing a portion of the costs. Another mailer was sent out indicating that the City would contribute .$301000 towards that project. At this point, we still do not have very many property owners in favor of moving forward with this project. Gill stated that parcels 4 , 51 61 8 and 10 were all allowed to develop and were issued building permits based on the covenants that they would participate in an L. I.D. in the future for the construction of sidewalks and they executed those documents , which was an agreement to not protest and L. I .D. All of those parcels except #8 are either not responding or do not want to proceed with this. Committee- unanimously agreed to recommend that Council authorize the formation of an L. I .D. ' for the Smith Street sidewalks. John Streich, of the Bicycle Advisory Committee commented that there is no room for bicyclists on Kent' s sidewalks. He requested that sidewalks be built to facilitate bicyclists as well as pedestrians use and that the size of driveways to widened. Gill stated that some sidewalk and driveway changes are being addressed in the new construction standards . 272nd/277th Corridor Update Brubaker stated that an addendum to the EIS has been issued. This addendum updates some of the information the City has received as a result of the Ramstead property purchase and investigation of the purchase of the Johnson property. It also clarifies some of the issues raised in the original EIS. Some plat work has been done on 116th Avenue S . E. ; that portion of the corridor that terminates 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 13, 1993 TO: Mayor Kelleher;, l& City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom,,lJ�Director of Public Works RE: LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalk (Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue) Resolution No. 1351 adopted by City Council on April 6, 1993 established May 4 , 19,93 for the public hearing on LID 342 . All of this was the result of a request received by the Public Works Committee and subsequent contact with property owners. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS Description: The project consists of the installation of 6.5' wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of Smith Street from Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue. The sidewalk will be adjacent to the existing curb with no planter strip. Cement concrete driveway sections will be installed in the sidewalk at existing driveways. Existing utilities and other improvements which would interfere with the sidewalk will be adjusted or relocated. Wheelchair ramps will be installed in the sidewalks at crosswalks. A short rockery may be constructed at the rear' of the sidewalk at locations where there is a significant grade change. ON FROM TO West Smith Street N. Washington Avenue 64th Avenue South PROJECT FUNDING The total project cost estimate is $96 , 926 . 50 . The City has agreed to obligate $30 , 000 from the current sidewalk fund to assist in the project financing. The balance is to be LID financed. $30, 000 . 00 City Sidewalk Funds 66 , 926 . 50 LID Funds $96, 926 . 50 Total Project Cost METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Each property with frontage on Smith Street within the project limits is being assessed. The LID cost is being distributed to the affected properties based on front footage on Smith Street. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT Upon Council passing, the ordinance confirming the final assesment roll (after completion of the construction) , there is a 30-day period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid. without interest charges. After the 30-day period, the balance is paid over a ten year period wherein each year's payment is 1/10th of the principal plus interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be what the market dictates. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT The properties adjacent to the project are zoned commercial and multi-family. As such, substantial pedestrian generated. City Standards therefore requiretraffic is that City streets etstra such as this, have sidewalks to address the pedestrian Sidewalks are required to bring Smith Street up to current City Standards. This need has been recognized for many years. Various properties within the LID have been required to execute no protest LID covenants for sidewalks upon obtaining various development permits. Currently there are covenants representing 53 . 57% of the LID. Also, it is our understanding that the Catholic Community Services, the owner that- initiated this action, is unable to obtain certain grant funding due to the lack of sidewalk access for handicaps. SUPPORT FOR LID As stated above, property owners representing 53 . 57% of the LID assessments are committed to this LID via LID no protest covenants. Since it only takes 40% support to allow an LID to be formed, Council thus has the option of proceeding with the project based on the covenants. During preliminary contact with the property owners it was determined that additional properties supported the project. With the covenants and others expressing interest via questionnaires, the apparent level of support is 66 . 52% . This level of support warrants bringing the proposal before the Council. ENVIRONMENTAL The Engineering Department has received a determination from the Planning Department that the proposed project is categorically exempt from SEPA. May 4 , 1993 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Water Conservation Plan. AUTHORIZATION to set May 18 as the public hearing date on the City ' s proposed Water Conservation Plan, which amends the City' s existing Water Conservation Plan. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Reith/Cambridge Tank Repainting - Accept As complete. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Olsen Brothers for the Reith Road and Cambridge Water Tank Repainting and Safety Improvements. SIDEWALKS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks. This date has been set for the public hearing on LID 342 . Public Works Director Wickstrom .pointed out the location and noted that the sidewalks will be between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South, on both sides of Smith Street . He said the total project cost is $96, 926 . 50 , of which $30 , 000 . 00 will be contributed by City Sidewalk funds and $66 , 926 . 50 will be LID funds . He said that owners representing 53 . 57% of the LID assessments are committed via LID no protest covenants . He added that there are approximately ten properties involved and that the assessments were based on front footage on Smith Street . He explained the procedure for payment of the assessments, noting that they can be paid over a ten year period. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried . BENNETT THEN MOVED that the memorandum of the Public Works Director be made a part of the record and that the city Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance creating LID 342 which calls for the installation of sidewalks along Smith Street . Orr seconded and the motion carried . CONSTRUCTION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) STANDARDS Construction Standards ._ This date has been set for the public hearing on the Public Works Con- struction Standards . These standards which for the most part, started out as the composition of various city adopted standards, are the results of a give-and-take proce- s involving both a 3 �r N O, 3Atl N019NIHS11M 'AMH 13111JA — — F iel tls�nmmrrrrr�uii�n I f z z LLI LO j Q t— Y ❑ { a f- - - F— LULU Z a � w o N c5 o { p mcn Uuj en Co , O - az z Y _ ^ I 3- N /� r fr Q L-.--- `C.I 3CL z —_-_.--_Jwa ulii+iw�i uvl i uwuuin uL n uw lull n.ul 'Nlh9 T i CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ordering sidewalk improvements on West Smith Street from N. Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South all in accordance with Resolution No. 1351 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 342 and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvement; providing that payment for the improvement be made in part by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds" ; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 1351 adopted April 6 , 1993 , the City Council declared its intention to order sidewalk improvements on West Smith Street from N. Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South, and fixed May 4 , 1993 , at 7 : 00 p.m. , local time, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing all matters relating to the proposed improvement and all comments thereon and objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City' s Director of Public Works caused an estimate to be made of the cost and expense of the proposed improvement and certified that estimate to the City Council, together with all papers and information in his possession touching the proposed improvement, a description of the boundaries of the proposed local improvement district and a statement of what portion of the cost and expense of the improvement should be borne by the property within the proposed district; and WHEREAS, that estimate is accompanied by a diagram of the proposed improvement showing thereon the lots, tracts, parcels of 0083256.01 land, and other property which will be specially benefited by the proposed improvement and the estimated cost and expense thereof to be borne by each lot, tract and parcel of land or other property; and WHEREAS, due notice of the above hearing was given in the manner provided by law, and the hearing was held by the City Council on the date and at the time above mentioned, and all persons appearing at such hearing and wishing to be heard were heard, and no objections were made; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it to be in the best interests of the City that the improvement as hereinafter described be carried out and that a local improvement district be created in connection therewith; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , orders the installment of sidewalk improvements on West Smith Street from N. Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. All of the foregoing shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by Director of Public Works of the City, and may be modified by the City Council as long as such modification does not affect the purpose of the improvement. Section 2 . There is created and established a local improvement district to be called Local Improvement District No. 342 of the City of Kent, Washington (the "District") , the 0083256.01 -2- boundaries or territorial extent of the District being more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3 . The total estimated cost and expense of the improvement is declared to be $96,926 . 50. Approximately $30, 000. 00 of the cost and expense shall be paid by the City and the balance of such cost and expense shall be borne by and assessed against the property specially benefited by such improvement included in the District which embraces as nearly as practicable all property specially benefited by such improvement. Section 4 . In accordance with the provisions of RCW 35. 44 . 047, the City may use any method or combination of methods to compute assessments which may be deemed to fairly reflect the special benefits to the properties being assessed. Section 5 . Local improvement district warrants may be issued in payment of the cost and expense of the improvement herein ordered to be assessed, such warrants to be paid out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 342 , hereinafter created and referred to as the Local Improvement Fund, and, until the bonds referred to in this section are issued and delivered to the purchaser thereof, to bear interest from the date thereof at a rate to be established hereafter by the City Finance Director, as issuing officer, and to be redeemed in cash and/or by local improvement district bonds herein authorized to be issued, such interest-bearing warrants to be hereafter referred to as "revenue warrants. " In the alternative, the City hereafter may provide by 0083256.01 -3- ordinance for the issuance of other short-term obligations pursuant to Chapter 39 . 50 RCW. The City is authorized to issue local improvement district bonds for the District which shall bear interest at a rate and be payable on or before a date to be hereafter fixed by ordinance. The bonds shall be issued in exchange for and/or in redemption of any and all revenue warrants issued hereunder or other short-term obligations hereafter authorized, including the interfund loans authorized by Section 6, and not redeemed in cash within twenty days after the expiration of the thirty-day period for the cash payment without interest of assessments on the assessment roll for the District. The bonds shall be redeemed by the collection of special assessments to be levied and assessed against the property within the District, payable in annual installments, with interest at a rate to be hereafter fixed by ordinance under the mode of "payment by bonds, " as defined by law and the ordinances of the City. The exact form, amount, date, interest rate and denominations of such bonds hereafter shall be fixed by ordinance of the City Council. Such bonds shall be sold in such manner as the City Council hereafter shall determine. Section 6 . For the purpose of paying all or a part of the costs of carrying out the improvements within the District pending the receipt of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the bonds or short-term obligations referred to in Section 5 , interfund loans from the General Fund, Water Fund and/or Sewer Fund to the Local Improvement Fund in the maximum aggregate amount of $96, 926 are authorized and approved, those loans to be repaid on or before the 0083256-01 -4- issuance of such bonds or obligations from the proceeds thereof. Each of the interfund loans shall bear interest at a variable rate, adjusted the fifteenth and last day of each month, equal to the interest rate . of the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool on the fifteenth and last day of each month. The initial interest rate on the date of each interfund loan shall be determined as of the last preceding interest payment adjustment date. Section 7 . In all cases where the work necessary to be done in connection with the making of such improvement is carried out pursuant to contract upon competitive bids (and the City shall have and reserves the right to reject any and all bids) , the call for bids shall include a statement that payment for such work will be made in cash warrants drawn upon the Local Improvement Fund. Section 8 . The Local Improvement Fund for the District is created and established in the office of the City Finance Director. The proceeds from the sale of revenue warrants or other short-term obligations drawn against the fund which may be issued and sold by the City and the collections of special assessments, interest and penalties thereon shall be deposited in the Local Improvement Fund. Cash warrants to the contractor or contractors in payment for the work to be done by them in connection with the improvement and cash warrants in payment for all other items of expense in connection with the improvement shall be issued against the Local Improvement Fund. Section 9 . Within fifteen (15) days of the passage of this ordinance there shall be filed with the City Finance Director the 0083256.01 -5- title of the improvement and District number, a copy of the diagram or print showing the boundaries of the District and the preliminary assessment roll or abstract of such roll showing thereon the lots, tracts and parcels of land that will be specially benefited thereby and the estimated cost and expense of such improvement to be borne by each lot, tract or parcel of land. The City Finance Director immediately shall post the proposed assessment roll upon her index of local improvement assessments against the properties affected by the local improvement. Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and five (5) days following its publication as required 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 0083256.01 -6- EXHIBIT "A* • LID 342 SMITH STREET SIDEWALKS - WASHINGTON AVENUE TO 64TH AVENUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Exhibit S attached and made a part hereto. STREET IMPROVEMENT Description: The project consists of the installation of 6. 5' wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of Smith Street from Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue. The sidewalk will be adjacent to the existing curb with no planter strip. Cement concrete driveway sections will be installed in. the sidewalk at existing driveways. Existing utilities and other improvements which would interfere with the sidewalk will be adjusted or relocated. Wheel chair ramps will be installed in the sidewalks at crosswalks. A short rockery may be constructed at the rear of the sidewalk at locations where there is a significant grade change. ON FROI+ TO West Smith Street N. Washington Avenue 64th Avenue South EXHIBIT "B" February 11, 1993 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION FOR LID 342 SMITH STREET SIDEWALKS (WASHINGTON AVE TO 64TH AVE) THOSE PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 9 & 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKER SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 4 OF KENT SHORT PLAT SP 75-15 REC AF 17601220366 SD PLAT DAF POR BLKS 9 & 29 MEEKERS SUPL PLAT OF 1ST ADD TO KENT DAF BEG AT NE COR SD BLK 9 TH S 00-42-13 W ALG E LN BLK 9 73 FT TO TPOB TH S 00-42-13 W ALG E LN SD BLKS 9 & 29 745.85 FT TO PT WCH BEARS S 89-17-47 E 24.50 FT FR NE COR TR CONV AF 17107210071 TH N 89-17-47 W 404 .45 FT TH N 00-42-13 E 43 . 52 FT TH N 89-17-47 W 156 FT TO NW COR SD TR TH S 00- 42-13 W 242 .75 FT TH S 89-37-13 W 99.37 FT TH S 00-42-13 W 102 FT TH S 24-17-46 W 177.23 FT TH S 89-37-13 W 90 FT TH S 00-42-13 W 72.29 FT TO SW COR SD TR BEGIN N IN OF SMITH ST TH S 89-37-13 W ALG SD LN 324. 62 FT TO POC TO RGT RAD OF 15 FT TH NWLY ALG ARC OF SD CRV C/A 91-40-58 ARC DIST 24 FT TO E IN OF 64TH AVE S TH N 01-18-11 E ALG SD LN 1049 . 03 FT TO ANGLE PT TH CONTG ALG E LN SD 64TH AVE S N 00-47-27 E 258 .93 FT TO POC TO RGT RAD OF 15 FT TH NWLY ALG ARC OF SD CRV C/A 90-13-17 ARC DIST 23 .62 FT TO S LN JAMES ST TH S 88-59-16 E ALG S LN 915.29 FT TH N 00-42-13 W 3 FT TH S 88-59-16 E 40 FT TH S 00-42-13 W 40 FT TH S 88-59-16 E 33 FT TO TPOB AKA POR SPC 75-15 ALSO PORTION OF BLOCK 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT POR BEG INTSN NLY MGN SHINN ST PROD W & 24 . 5 FT W OF E LN BLK 29 TH S 89-39-43 W 650. 50 FT TH N 00-42-13 E 72 FT TH N 89-39-43 E 90 FT TH N 24-17-46 W 177 . 23 FT TH N 00-42-13 E 102 FT TH N 89-39-43 E 99037 FT TH N 00-42-13 E 242 . 75 FT TH S 89-17-47 E 156 FT TH S 00- 42-13 W 43 . 52 FT TH S 89-17-47 E 379 . 95 FT TO W LN OF E 24 . 5 FT OF SD BLK TH S 00-42-13 W 525 . 43 FT TO BEG AND ALSO PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 27 & 29 MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT TR 'X' CITY OF KENT SP 80-4 REC AF #8007010620 SD SP DAF - PARCEL 'A' - TR 27 SD SUBD LESS E 240 FT THOF LESS ANY PORS LY S OF N MGN OF SMITH ST TGW - PARCEL 'B' - POR OF TR 29 SD SUBD DAF - BEG AT NE COR OF TR 9 SD SUBD TH S 00-42-38 W ALG E LN OF SD TRS 9 & 29 A DIST OF 818. 85 FT TAP WCH BRS S 89-17-22 E 24 . 50 FT FR NE COR OF A TR TO PROFESSIONAL MANIFEST INC UNDER AF 1 7101200071 & TPOB THN 89-17-22 W 24 . 50 FT TH S 00-42-38 W 525.43 FT TO N LN OF W SMITH ST TH N 89-37-35 E ALG SD N LN 24 . 50 FT TO E LN OF SD TR 29 TH N 00-42-38 E ALG SD E LN TO TPOB -- AKA POR SPC 80-4 AND ALSO PORTIONS OF BLKS 27 & 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 2 CITY OF KENT SP 80-4 REC AF if 8007010620 SD SP DAF -. PARCEL 'A' - TR 27 SD SUBD LESS E 240 FT THOF LESS ANY P0R5 LY S OF N MGN OF SMITH ST TGW - PARCEL 'B' - POR OF TR 29 SD SUBD DAF - BEG AT NE COR OF TR 9 SD SUBD TH S 00-42-38 W ALG E IN OF SD TRS 9 & 29 A DIST OF 818.85 FT TAP WCH BRS S 89-17-22 E 24 .50 FT FR NE COR OF A TR TO PROFESSIONAL MANIFEST INC UNDER AF if 7101200071 & TPOB TH N 89-17-22 W 24.50 FT TH S 00-42-38 W 525.43 FT TO N IN OF W SMITH ST TH N 89-37-35 E ALG SD N LN 24 .50 FT TO E LN OF SD TR 29 TH N 00-42-38 E ALG SD E LN TO TPOB -- AKA POR SPC 80-4 AND ALSO BLOCKS 27 & 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 1 CITY OF KENT SP 80-4 REC AF 18007010620 SD SP DAF - PARCEL 'A' - TR 27 SD SUBD LESS E 240 FT THOF LESS ANY PORS LY S OF N MGN OF SMITH ST TGW - PARCEL 'B' - POR OF TR 29 SD SUBD DAF - BEG AT NE COR OF TR 9 SD SUBD TH S 00-42-38 W ALG E LN OF SD TRS 9 & 29 A DIST OF 818 .85 FT TAP WCH BRS S 89-17-22 E 24.50 FT FR NE COR OF A TR TO PROFESSIONAL MANIFEST INC UNDER AF # 7101200071 & TPOB TH N 89-17-22 W 24 . 50 FT TH S 00-42-38 W 525.43 FT TO N LN OF W SMITH ST TH N 89-37-35 E ALG SD N LN 24 . 50 FT TO E LN OF SD TR 29 TH N 00-42-38 E ALG SD E LN TO TPOB -- AKA POR SPC 80-4 AND ALSO PORTIONS OF BLOCKS 27 & 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 3 CITY OF KENT SP 80-4 REC AF # 8007010620 SD SP DAF - PARCEL 'A' - TR 27 SD SUBD LESS E 240 FT THOF LESS ANY PORS LY S OF N MGN OF SMITH ST TGW - PARCEL 'B' - POR OF TR 29 SD SUBD DAF - BEG AT NE COR OF TR 9 SD SUBD TH S 00-42-38 W ALG E LN OF SD TRS 9 & 29 A DIST OF 818 . 85 FT TAP WCH BRS S 89-17-22 E 24 . 50 FT FR NE COR OF A TR TO PROFESSIONAL MANIFEST INC UNDER AF f 7101200071 & TPOB TH N 89-17-22 W 24 .50 FT TH S 00- 42-38 W 525 . 43 FT TO N LN OF W SMITH ST TH N 89-37-35 E ALG SD N LN 24 . 50 FT TO E LN OF SD TR 29 TH N 00-42-38 E ALG SD E LN TO TPOB -- AKA POR SPC 80-4 AND ALSO PORTION OF BLOCK 27 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT POR OF E 240 FT OF 27 N OF N LN OF SHINN ST EXTND WLY AND ALSO PORTION OF BLOCK 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 4 LESS ELY 58 . 50 FT THOF CITY OF KENT SHOR PLAT NO SP-74-12 (SPC 74-11) RECORDING NO 7501100471 -- PER UNNUMBERED CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED 23 AUG 1982 RECORDING NO 8208310374 & APPROVED O1 AUG 1984 RECORDING NO 8408090668 -- SD SHORT PLAT BEING A POR BLK 29 SUPL PLAT MEEKER'S 1ST ADD TO KENT DAF: BEG SW COR BLK 28 SD PLAT TH S 89-39-43 W ALG N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD 819. 17 FT TO TPOB TH N 00- 20-17 W 540 . 64 FT TO NXN WITH WLY PROLONGATION OF S MGN OF SHINN ST (W SMITH ST) TH S 89-39-43 W ALG SD PROLONGATED LN TO WLY LN SD BLK 29 TH SLY ALG SD WLY LN TO SW COR SD BLK 29 & N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD TH ELY ALG SD N MGN TO TPOB LESS W 30 FT FOR PUBLIC R/W AND ALSO PORTION OF BLOCK 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 1 LESS E 30 FT & LESS S 270 FT TGW E 58.50 FT LOT 4 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-74-12 (SPC 74-11) RECORDING NO 7501100471 -- PER UNNUMBERED CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED 23 AUG 1982 RECORDING NO 8208310374 & APPROVED O1 AUG 1984 RECORDING NO 8408090668 -- SD SHORT PLAT BEING A POR BLK 29 SUPL PLAT MEEKER'S 1ST ADD TO KENT DAF: BEG SE COR BLK 28 SD PLAT TH S 89-39-43 W ALG N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD 819.17 FT TO TPOB TH N 00-20-17 W 540. 64 FT TO NXN WITH WLY PROLONGATION OF S MGN OF SHINN ST (W SMITH ST) TH S 89- 39-43 W ALG SD PROLONGATED LN TO WLY LN SD BLK 29 TH SLY ALG SD WLY LN TO SW COR SD BLK 29 & N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD THE ELY SD N MGN TO TPOB LESS W 30 FT FOR PUBLIC R/W AND ALSO PORTION OF BLOCK 29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT LOT 2 TGW E 30 FT & S 270 FT OF LOT 1 & TGW E 35 FT & N 146.07 FT OF LOT 3 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-74-12 (SPC 74-11) RECORDING NO 7501100471 -- PER UNNUMBERED CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPROVED 23 AUG 1982 RECORDING NO 8208310374 & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LL-86-8 APPROVED O1 JULY 1986 RECORDING NO 8607100973 -- SD SHORT PLAT BEING A POR BLK 29 SUPL PLAT MEEKER'S 1ST ADD TO KENT DAF: BEG SE COR BLK 28 SD PLAT TH S 89- 39-43 W ALG N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD 819. 17 FT TO TPOB TH N 00-20-17 W 540. 64 FT TO NXN WITH WLY PROLONGATION OF S MGN OF SHINN ST (W SMITH ST) TH S 89-39-43 W ALG SD PROLONGATED LN TO WLY LN SD BLK 29 TH SLY ALG SD WLY LN TO SW COR SD BLK 29 & N MGN KENT-DES MOINES RD TH ELY ALG SD N MGN TO TPOB LESS W 30 FT FOR PUBLIC R/W AND ALSO PORTION OF BLOCKS 27-28-29 DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT 28 LESS S 150 FT OF E 150 FT & POR OF 27 & 29 LY S OF WLY PROD OF S MGN OF SHINN ST LESS POR OF 29 LY W OF LN BEG ON S LN 819 . 17 FT W OF SE COR TR 28 TH N 00-20-17 W TO N LN THOF Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 \ Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: HILL BUILDING 80-A - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: s Prnmmcnrloa by the Public WDrks- Committee, cceptance of the bill of sale and warranty agree- ment submitted by Hill-Raaum Investment Company for continuous) operation and maintenance of 815 feet of water main extension ) and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. The project is located at 18506 80th Place S. _ 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Cmt (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. 3K over-flow parking because it creates a legal, health, safety and welfare problem for the City and the streets are designed for the effective and efficient movement of traffic. Hill Building 80-A Bill of Sale L� Committee unanimously agreed to accept this bill of sale. Commuter Rail System Resolution (This resolution was added to 1. the agenda by Jim. Bennett for discussion. ) Bennett stated that he sees a cumbersome regional transit plan; although he somewhat agrees with the concept, he is not sure it is realistic in these economic times to spend 6 . 9 billion dollars. Bennett said that being this is one leg of the plan and we have people that are ready to step forth to put it into play (BNRR, UPRR, Amtrak and other suppliers) , he felt that we could bring it to the forefront as a resolution and bring it to the Council to see if they would adopt his feelings. Bennett went on to read sections of the resolution describing in detail some of the more important points, i. e. : "Section 4 . All agencies with jurisdiction in the King/Pierce/Snohomish County region are urged to expedite, in every way possible, the development and implementation of the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley as a first step toward implementation of a regional mass transportation network designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles throughout the tri-county region in conformance with the City, s Commuter Trip Reduction program. " Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Commuter Rail System Resolution. Meeting adjourned at 6 : 30 PM. 6 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 29, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO ITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTRO RE: BILL OF SALE - HILL BUILDING 80-A Hill-Raaum Investment Company, the developer of the Hill Building 80-A has completed the water improvements for this project. The Hill Building 80-A is in the vicinity of 18506 80th Place S. ACTION: That Bill of Sale be accepted and bonds released after the one-year maintenance period. i R E N T� 0 N �s 1S0'TH s•E) f a N KENT CITY LIMITS 2 n ZORILL I M 13TY OSCHCVAQ Z C 182ND '�ST —�� � i -a ILUA TERCHANGE A. OR[ LIA t PROJECT LOCATION ►� P O y ¢ � r N i / ¢ S 1"TH ST 7 D; U m 4 INDUSTRIAL i ¢ AREA n r 0- 190TH ST o Z gOTh z 2 ; I < 710 S 192N0 ST 36 31 � ST 192ND - I $ t 14TH T N d t-- % ------ S 196TH ST N \ z Q oc > ,98T1{ C u INDUSTRIAL W yt s o I u m AREA D u = s r•„�,t ¢ I n r 1 a -6 � sr H{ g 200TH 1 S 200TH ST Dnvr In Theater CL g 202ND ST RI g 202ND ST S. � E i CD : < ° 10 � u -Z i ( S 205TH y A 206TH ST » > S 206TH ST 'I r Z S I F < S Z t S x \ t g 07TN P S 208TH ST 1 6 S 208TH ST Industrial Rwd 'P � 1 Sul, `>LrfiOn Hill Building 80-A j • � Vicinity Map i ��+ fill is / C .. Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM - RESOLUTION i 2 . SUMMARY ST EMENT: QAs recommended by the Public Works' Committee,/Adoption of Resolution No. ) 3510 re a g-to Commuter Rail System. 3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and copy of draft resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Cmt (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. 3L over-flow parking because it creates a legal, health, - safety and welfare problem for the City and the streets are designed for the effective and efficient movement of traffic. Hill Building 80-A Bill of Sale Committee unanimously agreed to accept this bill of sale. Commuter Rail System Resolution (This resolution was added to the agenda by Jim Bennett for discussion. ) Bennett stated that he sees a cumbersome regional transit plan; although he somewhat agrees with the concept, he is not sure it is realistic in these economic times to spend 6 . 9 billion dollars. Bennett said that being this is one leg of the plan and we have people that are ready to step forth to put it into play (BNRR, UPRR, Amtrak and other suppliers) , he felt that we could bring it to the forefront as a resolution and bring it to the Council to see if"they would adopt his feelings. Bennett went on to read sections of the resolution describing in detail some of the more important points, i. e. : "Section 4 . All agencies with jurisdiction in the King/Pierce/Snohomish County region are urged to expedite, in every way possible, the development and implementation of the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley as a first step toward implementation of a regional mass transportation network designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles throughout the tri-county region in conformance with the City' s Commuter Trip Reduction program. " Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Commuter Rail System Resolution. Meeting adjourned at 6 : 30 PM. 6 RESOLUTION NO. D d ` A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, encouraging and promoting the earliest possible completion and implementation of the proposed Commuter Rail System within the Green River Valley. WHEREAS , the King/Pierce/Snohomish County Regional area is experiencing extreme traffic delays and congestion as a result of unprecedented growth in the area; and WHEREAS , the Green River Valley, which constitutes a significant portion of this region, has experienced similar traffic delays and congestion resulting from similarly unprecedented growth in the valley area ; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent, which is a significant urban center in the Green River Valley area, has experienced extreme traffic delays and congestion that has seriously impacted the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS , Commuter Rail service is being, and has been, studied using the existing Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in the Green River Valley and through the City of Kent to facilitate the transportation of commuters within the region; and WHEREAS , Commuter Rail service would improve traffic conditions in the Green River Valley and, in particular, in the City of Kent, would relieve traffic delays and congestion, and would be beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent; and 1 WHEREAS , a Commuter Rail project in the Green River Valley could function as the first link in a King/Pierce/Snohomish County regional transportation network designed to relieve traffic delays and congestion throughout the region by providing alternative transportation methods that will reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles throughout the tri-county region in conformance with city' s recently enacted Commute Trip Reduction program; and WHEREAS, similar rail projects in other communities have resulted in significantly decreased traffic delays and congestion and have resulted in significant economic rejuvenation to communities benefitted by commuter rail service, and .WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens and �77 government of the City of Kent and of all citizens within the Green River Valley to expedite the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley. NOW, THEREFORE , The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1 . The proposed commuter rail project using existing rail lines in the Green River Valley shall benefit all the citizens in the Valley and, in particular, the citizens and the government of the City of Kent. Section 2 . The City of Kent supports the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley and urgently recommends that the development and implementation of the proposed commuter rail project be expedited in every way possible . Section 3 . All agencies with jurisdiction in the King/Pierce/Snohomish County region are urged to support the commuter rail project in the Green River Valley. 2 Section 4 . All agencies with jurisdiction in the King/Pierce/Snohomish County region are urged to expedite, in every way possible, the development and implementation of the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley as a first step toward implementation of a regional mass transportation network designed to reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles throughout the tri-county region in conformance with the City ' s Commute Trip Reduction program. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of _ 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1993 . D � QC� 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 , 1993 . (SEAL) CITY CLERK COHTRAIL.res 3 4 Kent City Council Meeting X Date May 18 , 1993 Category consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: METRO SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUNDS - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: eco nded by the Parks Committ doption of Resolution No. 1 . $1, authorizing the Parks Department to apply for Metro Shoreline Improvement Grant fund to acquire and develop Riverview Park 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Cmt (2-0 with Johnson approving Consent Calendar, 5/11/93) and Parks Dept Staff -- (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 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing application for funding assistance for an outdoor shoreline recreation project to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle for Shoreline Improvement Funds. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent has approved a "Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan" for the urban area which identifies a park on the Green River in the southeastern part of the City; and, WHEREAS, under the provisions of a five million dollar fund set aside for shoreline acquisition or improvements in the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("METRO") service area, METRO funding assistance has been authorized and made available to aid in financing the cost of land for shoreline projects that replace, enhance or provide substitute environments, that provide shoreline for public access and use for wildlife habitat ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent considers it in the best public interest to acquire 11. 2 acres in the bend of the Green River adjacent to the Green River Trail . Tax lots 2522049001 and 2422049108 ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HERE BY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section I . That the mayor be authorized to make formal application to METRO for funding assistance, Section 2 . That any fund assistance so received be used in the acquisition of 11. 2 acres of land in the southeastern part of the City of Kent, Washington. Sect 3 . That the City' s share of the project will be derived from King County open Space Bond Issue proceeds and from grant funds from the Interagency Committee for outdoor Recreation. Sect 4 , The City of Kent does hereby certify that the City is responsible to support all non-cash commitments to the local share should they not materialize. Section 5. That any property acquired with financial aid through METRO be placed in use as an outdoor recreation facility with an emphasis on restoration of a high quality shoreline habitat, unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City Council , METRO, and any other agency with jurisdiction. Section 6. That any property acquired with financial aid through METRO be exclusively dedicated to use as an outdoor recreation facility with an emphasis on restoration of a high quality shoreline habitat and that a written document evidencing such exclusive dedication be filed on record with the King County Auditor in order to retain such use in perpetuity, unless otherwise provided and agreed to by the City Council , METRO, and any other agency with jurisdiction. Section 7 . That this resolution become part of a formal application to METRO. Passed at a regular meeting f Council thee City 1 of the City of Kent, Washington this Y of Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 2 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 L 4,. Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDING - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: `-As recommended__by the -Parks Committee, doption of Resolution No. /3—� authorizing the Pa-r7cs-- -- Department to apply for King County Conservation Futures funding to acquire property in Upper Mill Creek Canyon and to acquire Riverview Park. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Cmt (2-0 with Johnson approving Consent Calendar, 5/11/93) (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. 3N 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 local significance ; and WHEREAS , the following City projects are high priority acquisitions for the City of Kent, and they either are 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: 1) Riverview Park--consisting of approximately 11 . 2 acres along the east bank of the Green River within the City of Kent 2) Upper Mill Creek Canyon--consisting of approximately 6 . 5 acres in upper Mill Creek Canyon to complete City ownership of Mill Creek Canyon park, a 100 acre park; and WHEREAS, the Riverview Park and Upper Mill Creek Canyon projects are City projects that best meet the criteria for allocating funds for local projects of extraordinary significance as established in attachment B of King County Ordinance No. 10750 ; and WHEREAS , the deadline for submitting applications for funding consideration for projects of extraordinary regional significance is May 28 , 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 applications based on the appropriate County criteria for project funding under the County ' s Regional Conservation Futures Acquisition Program for the following City projects: 1) Riverview Park--consisting of approximately 11. 2 acres along the east bank of the Green River within the City of Kent 2) Upper Mill Creek Canyon--consisting of approximately 6 . 5 acres in upper Mill Creek Canyon to complete City ownership of Mill Creek Canyon park, a 100 acre park; and 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 Local Projects . Section 3 . The City represents that it shall comply with all obligations required in County Ordinance No. 10750 . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of _ 1993 . 2 Concurred in by the Mayor of the city of Kent, this day of 1993 . 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 , 1993 . (SEAL) CITY CLERK RCFGRNT2.prk 3 C' Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PROJECT LIGHTHOUSE & KENT YOUTH CENTER - RESOLUTION 2 . §UMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee, doption of Resolution No. //, encTorSi"n� Tie collaborative efforts of Project Lighthouse and the City of Kent to provide comprehensive services and resources to the adolescent youth o� the Kent area. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Cmt (2-0 with Johnson approving Consent Calendar, 5/11/93) and Parks Dept Staff (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. 30 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, in support of Project Lighthouse and a Kent Youth Center. WHEREAS , in addition to the services provided for the City' s youth through the Kent Parks and Recreation Department, the City' s youth also need a place of their own where they can obtain prevention and intervention services, alternative educational activities, and encouragement and direction, as well as recreational activities ; and WHEREAS , 270 of the city ' s population is age 19 and under (1990 census) , and 160 of the families living in the City are low income; and WHEREAS , a task force committee has been established to investigate all feasible alternatives available to establish a youth center in the City and to investigate possible funding sources for a youth center establishment ; and WHEREAS , various funding sources, including the establishment of a levy or bond measure, may be available to fund such a facility; and WHEREAS , Kent School District, Kent Youth and Family Services, and numerous other community agencies have collaborated to respond to the immediate needs of this community ' s youth by establishing a collaborative community program known as "Project Lighthouse" ; and WHEREAS, Kent School District has made available the former O ' Brien Elementary School building and site as an immediate facility to house the Project Lighthouse programs and activities; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The youth of the City of Kent deserve and are in vital need of a youth center facility where children and teenagers can go for counseling, alternative educational activities , and encouragement and direction, as well as for recreational activities. Section 2 . The City Council hereby supports and endorses the mission statement of Project Lighthouse. Mission Statement: "Project Lighthouse" is an organized and collaborative effort among youth and adult leaders in the community to provide comprehensive and integrated activities, services and resources to the adolescent youth of the Kent area, with particular focus on youth at risk. These services will be provided in a safe and accessible setting, coordinated around the developmental needs of youth and will be provided predominately free of charge. The purpose of this project is to provide adolescents with opportunities for growth, the attainment of self- sufficiency, and a sense of belonging to the community. 2 Section 3 . The City Council will work collaboratively with the Kent School District, King County, the State of Washington, and all other agencies toward the achievement of the mission statement. Section 4 . The City Council, for the short term, will use its best efforts to utilize City resources to support the initial opening of the O ' Brien site as a teen center for the summer and fall of 1993 . Section 5 . To enhance this collaborative effort, the City will strive to actively participate in the King County Anti- Gang Strategy. Section 6 . The City Council shares a vision with Project Lighthouse to develop a comprehensive plan in order to address the long range need for a community youth center. Section 7 . Following the successful study and review of the architectural plan, the City Council will pursue the placement of a levy or bond measure to fund the building and operational costs of a permanent community youth center facility to be built within the next two to eight years . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR 3 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, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK yuthctr2.res 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 V Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: YOUTH CENTER - PLANNING & DESIGN - RFP 2 . UMMARY STATEMENT: (,Ls_ recommended_by the Parks Committee,)-\ uthorization to proceed with a request for proposal from architectural firms interested in bidding on the planning and 1 architectural design for the development of a community youth / center. < 3 . EXHIBITS• RFP 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Cmt (2-0 with Johnson approving Consent Calendar, 5/11/93) and Parks Dept Staff (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. 3P THE CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR A YOUTH CENTER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Kent is requesting letters of interest and statements of qualification from architectural firms interested in providing planning and architectural design development for a community youth center. The project will involve siting development, facility planning, and estimating project costs. The City intends that the selected consultant(s) , in association with the City, will develop and implement a public process to determine the siting, scope, and program(s) of a youth center. To that end, the consultant' s anticipated services will include (1) evaluation of existing and alternative sites; (2) development of building programs (types, sizes, and relationships of program spaces) ; (3) estimating construction, operating, and maintenance costs; (4) environmental assessment; (5) permit processing; (6) funding alternatives; and, (7) identify community support of funding of a youth center (s) through tax dollars; and, (8) identify community support for a youth center for children 6 through 12 years and/or for youth 12 through 19 years of age. The first phase of this overall project involves selection of a consultant (s) to address the feasibility of the overall project. This feasibility study shall, at a minimum, include the following elements: 1) Center Options a. Based on space needs, prepare a minimum of four development options for an efficient and functional center, to include but not limited to: 1) Remodel and add space to the existing facility. 2) Demolish the existing center and build a new one on the same site in a phased approach. 3) Build a new center at a new location. 4) Build a new center at a new location using a phased approach. 5) Remodel another building. b. All options will include a coordinating element with the Kent School District to identify joint program and facility use opportunities. C. All options will include a coordinating element with the Kent Arts Commission and selected consultant (s) to incorporate the City's Art in Public Places program into the planning and design phases. 2 . Site Location Options -- Based on the size of the center, parking requirements and optional abutting recreation space, the size of each center option will require a minimum number of acres. Sites within Kent city limits shall be identified that meet the acreage such as -- street access, central location, bus, bicycle, pedestrian access, public visibility, environmental limitations, compatibility with surrounding area, zoning, and demographic consideration. 2 3 . Funding Options -- Working with the City Finance Department, analyze funding options for cost estimates that have been prepared for the various center options and land purchases. 4 . Recommendation -- The consultant shall prepare a prioritized list of development options with support "pros" and "cons" for existing site and other center option. 5 . Study Format -- The study shall be presented in as simplified form as possible. Separate support documents shall be prepared that includes detailed information for each option. 6 . Design Diagrams -- Review design diagram options with the City of Kent and appropriate groups . Potential space may include a gymnasium, day care, music rooms, game rooms) /multi-purpose room, computer room(s) , offices, meeting room(s) , ticket office, kitchen, concessions, seating, toilet facilities, arts & crafts rooms, display areas, weight lifting room, shower and locker room facilities, and cultural facilities . Review and select preferred option. 7 . Develop Pre-Schematic Option, Artist Rendering, Site Model, and Cost Estimate--Provide one reproducible and eight copies of the schematic design, artist rendering, and site model. (Performed for select preferred option. ) 3 A. Building (Cost estimate) 1) Public spaces 2) Mechanical/electric 3) Permit fees B. Site Development (Cost estimate) 1) Parking 2) Landscaping 3) Sidewalks 4) Lighting 5) Signage 5) Storm water and drainage C. Equipment (Cost estimate) 1) Furnishings/window coverings 2) Lighting control 3) Sound system/security system 4) Game room 5) Computer/recreational/classroom equipment 6) Office/kitchen equipment D. Fees (Cost estimate) 1) Sales tax 2) Contingency 3) Escalation 4) Other Any firm interested in developing this feasibility study for the City should submit a statement of qualification indicating the firm's ability and expertise regarding the project. Any submitter 4 must, at a minimum, include resumes of key personnel who will work on the project, examples of similar work, and references for projects cited by the firm as examples of similar work. The City of Kent will select the consultant(s) it deems the most qualified for final interviews based on written submittals. Once selected, the City will negotiate with the consultant(s) to set the consultant(s) fee schedule for this feasibility study. If the City and the selected consultant(s) cannot agree on a satisfactory fee arrangement, then the City will exercise its option to terminate those negotiations and may commence similar negotiations with any other candidate who presented a written submittal to the City. Once finally selected, your firm will have 45 days to present a full draft report and an additional 15 days to prepare the final report. Further information pertaining to this request for qualification may be obtained from the Kent Parks and Recreation Department at 859-3599 , Cheryl Fraser, Facility Manager. Interested firms should mail statements of qualification to the City of Kent, Parks and Recreation Department, 220 4th Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98031. Information must be delivered by 5 p.m. on 5 3Q G� 4 MEMORANDUM TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DATE: MAY 18, 1993 ( �� SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the May 18, 1993 City Council meeting. Due to illness, I will be unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. JW:jb ��' cj D � I� DfaI �r'� , u se ,�0 �✓1 V lnfoo4, f ec( Ci Ct 3 , ct� cvyl Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 k Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: REFUNDING OF 1980, 1986 and 1990 VOTED BONDS - BOND ORDINANCE & PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended that Council adopt a bond ordinance and authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers for approximately $14 , 638 , 550 to refinance the callable portion ($12 , 755 , 000) of the 1980, 1986 and 1990 Voted Bonds. The true interest cost will be approximately 5. 44 percent which will save the City approximately $470, 000 in present value debt service. The refinancing will allow a property tax reduction of approxi- mately $ . 15 per thousand of assessed valuation, saving the owner of a $100, 000 home approximately $14 . 95 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 ELIL� seconds to adopt Bond Ordinance No. and to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION: KL"o ACTION• / /hl C4 Council Agenda Item No. 4A ,s:L-2 sHEaRsora LEHriara City of Kent, Washington F.a/s Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 Refunding of callable 1960, 1986 and 1990 Bonds asaasasasasaaa:asasaaaaaxazaasasa.ssaaaz+aaaaaaaa S O U R C E S A N D U S E S O F F U N D S ----------------------------------------------- DELIVERY DATE 5/27/93 Sources of Funds aaxaxaaxaxasaaax Par Amount of Bonds................... $14,S25,000.00 *Premium /-Discount................... $0.00 Accrued o ce ruedinterest....... 14,525,000.00 113,550.50 ------------------- S14,638,550.50 Uses of funds aa==saaaasaaa Approximate Pro-Rated Issuance Expenses........... 50,500.00 Underwriter's Discount..................( 1.000000%••. Pro-Rated Refunding Escrow................. )"' 145,250.0o Bond Insurance.................. 14,250,573.33 { 0.335000%)... 74:288.13 Accrued Interest.............. .. Contingency113,550.50 """"""'"" ........................... 4,388.54 .................. ------------------- $14,638,550.50 Lehman Brothers RUNDATE: 05-13.1993 a 15:58:26 FILENAME: KENTGO KEY: 1993-UTGO / P.5i5 / City of Kant, Washington Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 Refunding of Callable 1"0, 1986 and 1990 Bonds .............. SAVINGS RCPORT ..s...a..saasc - - - - - PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE - - PRIOR DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST TOTAL CUMULATIVE ........ D/S SAVINGS SAVINGS 12/ 1/93 470,000.00 2.500000 486,645.00 956,645.00 882,970.00 39,875.50 6/ 1/94 359,108.75 39,875.50 12/ 1/94 160,000.00 2.750000 359,108.75 $78,217.50 61 1/95 356,908.75 915,527.50 37,310.00 77,185.50 12/ 1/95 165,000.00 3.400000 356,908.75 878,817.50 918,602.50 39,785.00 116,970.50 6/ 1/96 354,103.75 12/ 1/% 170,000.00 3.900000 354,103.75 878,207.50 916,487.50 38,280.00 6/ 1/97 350,788.75 155,250.50 12/ 1/97 790,000.00 4.250000 350,788.75 1,491,577.50 61 1/98 334,001.25 1,529,180.00 37,602.50 192,853.00 12/ 1/98 820,000.00 4.550000 334,001.25 1,488,002.50 1,526,417.50 38,415.00 231,268.00 6/ 1/99 315,346.25 12/ 1/99 855,000.00 4.750000 315,346.25 1,485,692.50 6/ 1/ 0 1,525,147.50 34,455.00 270,723.00 295,040.00 12/ 1/ 0 895,000.00 4.900000 295,040.00 1,485,080.00 1,520,632.50 35,552.50 306,275.50 6/ 1/ 1 273,112.50 12/ 1/ 1 1,250,000.00 5.050000 273,112.50 1,796,225.00 1,834,172.50 37,947.50 344,223.00 6/ 1/ 2 241,550.00 12/ 1/ 2 1,310,000.00 5.150000 241,550.00 1,793,100.00 1,830,905.00 37,805.00 382,028.00 6/ 1/ 3 207,817.50 12/ 1/ 3 1,375,000.00 5.250000 207,817.50 1,790,635.00 1,827,107.50 36,472.50 418,SOO.SD 6/ 1/ 4 171,723.75 12/ 1/ 4 1,445,Oo0.00 5.350000 171,723.75 1,788,447.50 1,826,442.50 38,495.00 456,995.50 6/ 1/ 5 133,070.00 12/ 1/ 5 1,525,000.00 5.400000 133,070.00 1,791,140.00 1,829,815.00 38,675.00 495,670.50 6/ 1/ 6 91,895.00 6/ 1/ 7 12/ 1/ 6 1,605,000.00 5.500000 91,895.00 1,788,790.00 1,829,455.00 40,665.00 536,335.50 47,757.50 12/ 1/ 7 535,000.00 5.600000 47,757.50 630,515.00 666,655.00 36,140.00 572,475.50 6/ 1/ 8 32,777.50 12/ 1/ 8 560,000.00 5.650000 32,777.50 625,555.00 6/ 1/ 9 662,Z35.00 36,680.00 609,155.50 16,957.50 12/ 1/ 9 595,000.00 5.700000 16,957.50 628,915.00 665,260.00 36,345.00 645,500.50 ______ ACCRUED ,500.50 -- •- 14,525,000.00 7,650,562.50 22,175,562.50 22,707,512.50 113,550.50 113:550.50 645,500.50 14,525,000.00 7,537,012.00 22,062,012.00 22,707,512.50 645,500.50 Dated 4/ 1/93 with Delivery of 5/27/93 Bond Years 145,348,333 Average Coupon 5.263605 Average Life 10.006770 N I C % 5.363538 % Using 99.0000000 T I C % 5.442708 % From Delivery Date N 0 T E : Savings on 12/ 1/93 Include Accrued Interest of 113,550.50 Net Present Value Savings at: 5.2816% Equals 470,722.46 or 3.2408% of Par of the Current Issue or 3.6876% of Par of the Prior Issue Lehman Brothers RUNDATE: 05-13-1993 a 16:01:40 FILENAME: KENTGO KEY: 1993-UTGO S am 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 ofof 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. 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 1, 1991, on February 1, 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 20001 inclusive, bearing interest at various rates from 7 . 00% to 7 .40% (the "Refunded 1980 Bonds") ; and 0074553.01 Ordinance No. 2684 , passed December 15, WHEREAS, pursuant to 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 on or after December 1, 1997 , on December 1, 1996, and on maturing 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 6, 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 1, 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 $4 , 280, 000 principal December 1 of each of the years amount of 1990 Bonds maturing on 2001 through 2004 , inclusive, and in the year 2009 and bearing 30$ (the "Refunded 1990 interest at various rates from 6.90% to 7 . Bonds") ; and and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the 986 Bonds and Refunded 1990 Bonds Refunded 1980 Bonds, Refunded 1 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 anst It 1993 , redemption and, on August 1, 1993 , the call, payment 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 1, 1996, the call, payment a Ym 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 1, 2000, and, on December 1, 2000, the call, payment a ym 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: 0074553.01 -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 1, 1996, and on December 1, 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 1, 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 a_- t_ Dates_ Amounts R --------- 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 on December 1, � 3 shall constitute of the Bonds maturing nonvoted debt of the City. Sect___i o e istration 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. 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 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 1, 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 1, 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'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 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. Section 10. 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. a Certificate of Authentication in the Only Bonds bearing 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 ticated, delivered and issued and, Bonds nevertheless may be authen 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. 0074553.01 -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 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 0074553.01 -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 proceeds of the Bonds. 0074553.01 -16- (e) Authorization for Refunding Trust Agreement. In order 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 17 . 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 1, 1996, all of the Refunded 1986 Bonds at par plus accrued interest; and on December 1, 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 . Cit Findings with Respect to Re-funding. 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 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. 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 issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials afe 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- Date of Ordinance. This ordinance Section 22 . Effective 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 0074553.01 -21- LEHMAN BROTHERS CITY OF KENT HINGTON Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 hu&CNASF CONLRA 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 to offerrto purchase from the City of Kent, Washington (thee r Brothes Division of eaon Lehman Brothers Inc. "Seller') all of its is pleased $_�_ principal amount of Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, based uon theforth 1993 (the Exhibit dA )attached,f which when acceptedebysthedSellertshallsconstit eethe and in terms and conditions of our Purchase Contract for the Bonds. Those terms an conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to the date of delivery and payment for the Bonds identified thorizing the paragraph i of Exhibit A ("Closing'), the Seller shall pass an ordinance authorizing issuance of the Bonds (the "Bond Ordinance") in form and substance acceptable to the Purchaser. all 2. The Seller shall sell and deliver to fthe or Purch entire'$and tPurchaser finchpal purchase, accept delivery of and pay 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. he 3. The Seller consents to and ratifies the use contained in the Preliminary Official'St tementpdated Marchr of the information con of which is attached to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement'), a copy pot ofse Contract as a Final official tatement (theit B, for marketing the"Final official Stds, authorizes the atement") for the preparationOfficial Bonds containing such revisions and additions' to the Preliminary 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. , LEHMAN BROTHERS DIVISION SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AN AMERIQ--N FXPRESS COMPANY 999 THIRD AVENUE SUITE 4000 SEATTLE,`IA 98I0/ 206 344 3592 FAX.106 344 9073 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; 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)(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; ck exchange trading or (3) International or banking moratorium l onal crisis, suspension f materially affecting the marketability 1 ty 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 a d s beta ce acceptable to the Seller and Purchaser, 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; -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 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) definitive vy an y of the final officialr of tenement, signed on behalf of the S (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. w 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,printing and executing and Official Statements, and the costs of drafting, 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 hose upplemomissiont or amendment to the Final Official Statement, the party misstatement or changed circumstance has resulted in the supplement or in a form and will in a mannerense supplement or amend the Fal approved by the Seller d the Pu Official Statement rchaaser. -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 in writing to Lehman Brothers Division of Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc., 999 Third Avenue, 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 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:kg0114C Enclosures -6- EXHIBIT A DESQRIPTION 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. Dated 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: 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 Year Amount Rate Year Raic- 1993 $ 2002 $ 1994 2003 1995 2004 1996 2005 1997 2006 1998 2007 1999 2008 2000 2009 2001 g. Net Interes ost: h. Redemption: 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 at e Bond d Registrar shall determine) on and after June 1, 2003, at par, plus interest to the date of redemption. - i. Estimated Closing Date and Location: On or about April 22, 1993 in Seattle, Washington. j. Required Ratings of Bonds: Moody's _ and Standard & Poor's k. BDnd 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 Underwriting Spread: o0 l in„idatP Damages: $2,000. RBK:kg0114 C -7- Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: REFUNDING OF 1978 AND 1989 COUNCILMANIC BONDS - BOND ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended that Council adopt a bond ordinance and authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers for approximately $2 , 740, 000 to refinance the callable portion ($2 , 495, 000) of the 1978 and 1989 Councilmanic Bonds. The true interest cost will be approximately 5 . 29 percent which will save the City approximately $94 , 000 in present value debt service. The savings can be used to finance future Capital Improvements which 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 FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ,ti moves, Councilmember tvL/ seconds to adopt Bond Ordinance No. and to authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION: n{�Q ACTION: / yyl r� (1�/ Council Agenda Item No. 4B MAY 19 '92 15:22 SHEARSON LEHMAN P.2i5 City of Kant, Washington Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 Refunding of 1978 and 1989 Bonds *as=za=aa=asaa=saassa===asaaa:aaa=sass++++ SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS as=assaassasaaassa+sass:_aaaassazsaasasassaa:sass DELIVERY DATE: 5/27/93 Sources of Funds =aaaaasaasa=zaaa Par Amount of Bords................... $2,760,000.00 +Premium /-Discount................... $0.00 Bond Proceeds........................................... 2,760,000.00 Accrued Interest........................................ 20,186.06 ------------------- S2,780,186.06 Uses of Funds :aaaax=z_::=a Approximate Pro-Rated Issuance Expenses................. 9,500.00 Underwriters Discount..................( 1.000000%)... 27,600.00 Pro-Rated Refunding Escrow.............................. 2,696,115.69 Bond Insurance..........................( 0.690000%)... 25,190.72 Accrued Interest........................................ 20,186.06 Contingency............................................. 1,593.59 $2,780,186.06 Lehman Brothers RUNDATE: 05-13-1993 a 15:56:32 FILENAME: KENTGO KEY: 1993-LTGO 7. MH'� 13 '93 15'22 SHEARSON LEHNAN City of Kent, Washington Limited Tex General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 1993 Refunding of 1978 and 1989 Bonds arercc=cc=cc SAVINGS REPORT PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE - - - - - _ - - PRIOR CUMULATIVE DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST TOTAL D/S SAVINGS SAVINGS -------------- 06 8/ 1/93 43,255.83 9,18 .58 20,186.06 - 2/ 1/94 75,000.00 2.750000 64,883.75 183,139.58 174,055.00 ,084. 11,101.48 8/ 1/94 63,852.50 2/ 1/95 135,000.00 3.400000 63,852.50 262,705.00 271,155.00 8,450.00 19,551.48 8/ 1195 , 2/ 1/96 140,000.00 3.900000 61,557.50 263,115.D0 270,210.00 7,095.00 26,646.48 8/ 1/96 2/ 1/97 330,000.00 4.250000 58:827.50 447,655.00 458,920.00 11,265.00 37,911.48 8/ 1/97 51,815.00 2/ 1/98 345,000.00 4.550000 51,815.00 448,630.00 458,792.50 10,162.50 48,073.98 8/ 1/98 43,966.25 2/ 1/99 355,000.00 4.750000 43,966.25 442,932.50 452,142.50 9,210.00 57,283.98 e/ 1/99 35,535.00 2/ 1/ 0 250,000.00 4.900000 35,535.00 321,070.00 328,062.50 6,992.50 64,276.48 8/ i/ 0 , 2/ 1/ 1 265,000.00 5.050000 29,410.00 323,820.00 331,387.50 7,567.50 71,843.98 8/ 1/ 1 22,718.75 2/ 1/ 2 275,000.00 5.150000 22,718.75 320,437.50 328,137.50 7,700.00 79,543.98 8/ 1/ 2 15637.50 2/ 1/ 3 290,000.G0 5.250000 15:637.50 321,275.00 328,660.00 7,385.00 $6,928.98 8/ 1/ 3 8,025.00 2/ 1/ 4 300,000.00 5.350000 8,025.00 316,050.00 3......... 11,520.00 -__. 48....... . .......... .../......__.. 2,760,000.00 890,829.58 3,650,829.58 3 729,092.50 98,448.98 ACCRUED 20,186.06 20,166.06 q8 448.98 2,760,000.00 870,643.52 3,630,643.52 3,729,092.50 aaaas:isisixcc ssszass:szscsz aszizsze czcc= cczas:aisiiisi Dated 4/ 1/93 with Delivery of 5/27/93 Bond Years 18,025,000 Average Coupon 4.942189 Average Life 6.530797 N I C X 5.095310 X Using 99.0000000 T I C % 5.291021 X From Delivery Date N 0 T E : Savings on 8/ 1/93 Include Accrued Interest of 20,186.06 Issue Net Present Value Savings at: 5.2816X Equals 94,010.28 or or 3.76679% of Par of the Prior 2% of.Par of the nt Issue Lehman Brothers RUNDATE: 05-13-1993 a 16:04:53 FILENAME: KENTGO KEY: 1993-LTGO 3 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 callable portions of the City's outstanding Limited Tax 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 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. 2092 passed March 8 , 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 July 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 11 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 11 1996 , and, on February 11 1996, the call, payment a ym 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 N 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 $ 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, and on February 11 1996, to call, pay and redeem all of the 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 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 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 1, , 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 0075563.01 -6- determine) , on February 11 , 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 0075563.0I -8- 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 0m5563.01 -10- 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 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 0075563.01 -11- 1. 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 0075563.01 -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 -15- 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 17 . 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. 2092 and 2835 in order to effect the redemption prior to their maturities of the Refunded 1978 Bonds and Refunded 1989 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 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 -17- 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 0075563.01 -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 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 Final Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. LEHMAN BROTHERS DIVISION SHEARSON LEHMAN BROTHERS NC. AN AMER1CAN EXPRES5 COMPANY 999 THIRD AVENUE SUrTE 4000 SEATTLE,WA 98104 206 344 3592 FAX 206 344 S073 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; 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)(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 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; -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 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 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:kg0113 C 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. Dated 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 Schedule: Bonds shall mature serially on February 1 of each year in the amounts and shall bear interest at the rates set forth below: Due Interest Due Interest 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. Estimated Closing 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 Expires: April 6, 1993 at 11:59 p.m., Pacific Daylight Savings Time. n. Gross Underwriting Soread: % ($ ) o. Liquidated Damages: $2,000. RBK:kg0113C -7- r ! Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the last Council meeting on May 4, the Council adopted the City' s newly revised Public Works Construction Standards. Since that time, some technical corrections have been made to these standards. The Public Works Department now requests adoption of these standards, including the recent technical amendments. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director, memorandum from Stan Wade, Construction Engineer, to Don Wickstrom, memorandum from Construction Standards Review Committee to Don Wickstrom, Dept. of Fisheries/Wildlife Hydraulic Code Rule Revision dated 4/10/93 draft, publication notices and excerpt of May 4 City Council minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Cmt (3-0 vote) and City Council (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: Councilmemberdi'4wt-L moves, Councilmember 4seconds that Ordinance No. .3/!7 adopting the newly revised Public Works Construction Standards, be adopted. DISCUSSION• Y ACTION Council Agenda Item No. 4C PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MARCH 18, 1993 PRESENT: JIM WHITE ED WHITE JIM BENNETT JOHN BOND PAUL MANN RAUL RAMOS DON WICKSTROM LINDA JOHNSON TOM BRUBAKER JOHN KIEFER GARY GILL BILL DOOLITTLE BILL WOLINSKI MR & MRS RUST STAN WADE Resolution Creating the City Transit Advisory Board Jim White stated that this is patterned after the Bicycle Advisory Board placing greater emphasis on transit as was established in the Council ' s goals and objectives . Committee unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of this Resolution. Lake Plaza Condominiums Master Meter Wickstrom stated that under City ordinance, in order to obtain a master meter to service more than one complex, Council approval is required. Wickstrom stated that Lake Plaza Condominiums wants two master meters to service two complexes . Committee unanimously agreed to recommend approval of two master meters at Lake Plaza Condominiums . Construction Standards "yy Wickstrom stated that this has been a long awaited process in developing these Construction Standards . We have developed them through our own in-house staff, while working with the Planning Dept. and Maintenance and have developed what we felt was appropriate. A review committee was selected made up primarily of the development community. Wickstrom stated that we received names thru the Master Builders, the Chamber and the Association of General Contractors . We placed advertisements in 'the newspapers advising that copies were available for input to the committee . 1 Wickstrom requested that a public hearing be set for the April 20th Council meeting . If there are no major reactions or major concerns, that it would be adopted at that time . If there were major concerns, than it would come back to Public Works Committee for further input . Committee unanimously agreed recommendation of a public hearing for May 4th. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MARCH 12, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO ITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Enclosed herewith is the long awaited Public Works Construction Standards. Enclosed also are several memos. The first memo (from Stan Wade) gives the background, perspective relating to our standards (old and new) . It also denotes the process used to develop these new standards . Finally, it gives a synopsis of the significant changes made (old versus new) . The second memo (from the Review Committee) denotes the Committee' s support for, and identifies their concerns, per these new standards. Lastly, the third memo (Stormwater Standards) denotes the basis for the significant change in our stormwater standards. The action sought from the Committee is to recommend to full Council adoption of these Standards (an adoption ordinance will be required) . The process we propose would be to hold a Public Hearing thereon, at the April 20th Council meeting. Should no significant comments surface at the hearing, than adoption of the ordinance would be in order. Should however, significant comments be raised, then the matter would be referred back to the Committee for further review and a formal recommendation. Action: Approval of the Adoption Process noted above and recommend setting a Public Hearing date on the matter for the April loth Council meeting. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS _ MARCH 12, 1993 TO: DON�WICKSTROM, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FROM: S7 WADE, CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER RE: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS The following is a synopsis of the history, procedure, and main points of modification of the Construction Standards. The last adopted standards occurred in 1962 . However, since that time _the City of.Kent has adopted comprehensive plans for drainage, sewer, water and transportation which included construction standards. Other documents included various utility ordinances, the subdivision code and ordinances specifying APWA and 'WSDOT as standards to be followed. From these documents a draft construction standards manual was developed over the past several years as an in-house guide to review plans and for use in construction inspection. From the draft construction standards, a concerted effort was begun to update the standards to the present submitted form. The first step was to clarify, modify and reorganize the sections and to add appendices which included the standard details . This task was accomplished within the Construction Section of the Engineering Division. The next step was a review by other sections of the Public Works Department including design, transportation, environmental, survey, property management, and operations and maintenance. The Code Enforcement and Planning Departments provided input during this phase. Also involved in assisting the City in the development of Section 6 (Stormwater Standards) were Entranco Engineers and Northwest Hydraulics , consulting engineers. The final review was performed by a construction Standards Review Committee composed of developers, engineers, and contractors . The purpose of this review was to provide an opportunity for the primary users of the document to give input from the private sector point of view as well as information regarding the latest state-of- the art design and construction practices . The input from this group was valuable in providing a practical document. The committee was chosen after consulting w _th the Association of 1 the Kent General Contractors, Masterbuias given and opportunity pportunit Chamber breview Commerce. Finally the public was given an opp Y the standards having been informed through advertising in the Valley Daily News and the Journal of Commerce. The major changes to the Construction Standards are as follows: o A section was added to describe plat and short plat conditions. (Section 1. 1. 5) o Street use and street cut bonds Sections 1. 1. 621. 1n.7) case-by- case basis, not mandatory. o The Latecomers Agreement section was modified to require information on methods of assessing costs, etc. at the time of plan approval. (Section 1. 1. 11) o A definition of terms sections was added. (Section 2) o Easements will not be required to b recorded e and 3 .d1)until the Bill of Sale goes to Council. (Typical o Various changes related to materials allowed in construction were added throughout the. document. o Specific detentioh criteria was established for the hill areas, and valley areas of Kent to prevent worsening of flooding and stream erosion from future development. (Section 5 . 0) o Stormwater treatment requirements and sediment and erosion practicescontrol rated in the standards to protecct heCity' s water resourpcoes from further degradation. (Section 5 . 0) o Provisions were made for exemption to the standards where requirements are to be satisfied by regional detention and treatment facilities funded in the Capital Improvement Program. (Section 5 . 0) o Functional classification of streets was slightly modified. (Section 6) o Design Standards for all street classifications is provided in a tabular form. o Sidewalks and driveways will meet ADA requirements. (Section 6) o A new section on pavement design criteria was added including upgrading of section thickness. (Section 6. 6) 2 . o Many of the standard details were changed to reflect new materials or requirements. (Appendices) o An "As-built" section was added. (Appendices) o A Maintenance section for drainage facilities was added. (Appendices) o A Standard Construction Notes section was added. (Appendices) In summary, the document consists of six Sections and Appendices as follows: Section 1 - Permits and.Approvals Section 2 - General Conditions and Requirements Section 3 - Water System Improvements Section 4 - Sanitary Sewer System Section 5 - Stormwater System Section 6 - Streets and Roadways Appendices: A - Notes B - Detail Drawings C - Fee Schedule D - Maintenance for Drainage Facilities E - As-built Requirements F - Detention Calculation Examples 3 TO: DON WICKSTROM FROM: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE DATE: MARCH 12 , 1993 RE: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS On February 10th, the Review Committee completed its review of the proposed new Construction Standards Manual, to produce what we believe is a document which will meet the City of Kent' s current needs while also providing flexibility in areas where the private development sector may incorporate cost saving techniques which do not jeopardize the City' s concerns relative to fire, safety, and integrity of the completed project. The Review Committee was composed of representatives from the surveying professions, contractors, developers, engineering and from the City of Kent' s Public Works builders, and personnel Committee completed a detailed review of Department. The Review two he Construction each of the sections of t est on , o concerns mon th and period and provided , comments, suggestions, ta sments and I standards within each of the alternatives to the require unt of time and effort was spent draft sections. A considerable amo on the permits and approval section in an attempt to restructure the permitting phase to reduce the amount pun of t me requiredain to obtain building and construction permits . easements, agreements, and other documentation determined not to be necessarily required to begin the review process were modified so that these items could be addressed simultaneously while the review process continued. These documents would, however, be required prior to building permit issuance. In order to protect the City of Kent ' s staff from spending time reviewing projects which may eventually not be issued permits, due to significant impacts or unresolvable design criteria, (such as offsite easements or agreements with adjacent propertycheck owners) , the tat d velthetpe i 1p now be required to submit a p lan submittal. This procedure appears to be acceptable to both the City of Kent and the Development Sector . Certain other issues within the sewer, water, and totransportation sections were also modified where possible additional flexibility. porate For instance, easement widths for inized utilities, types of materials, pipe cover, etc. , were scruQssible extensively so that they were made. more practical where p for the specific application. Easement widths were reduced over utility lines where practical, some additional pipe materials fittings and construction techniques were added to the acceptable list, and minimum pipe covers were reduced in certain cases, based on manufacturers recommendations . Altheugh these changes may in 1 some case help reduce construction costs for developers they were also determined to not have an adverse impact y Of the completed project. Throughout the document, many clarifications were incorporated into the sections to minimize misinterpretations as much as possible so that consistency can be preserved for both the user and the reviewer. It was generally agreed upon by the Review Committee that the final draft sections for water, sanitary sewer, and streets and roadways were generally c dictions andh rehresentedr sound ng neeringsand most- other j p storm drainage section construction practices. However, the created many concerns and differences of opinion between City staff, the Consulting Engineers, - and the Developers. It is known that the City of Kent is experiencing serious flooding and erosion to these ll and alley problems within sta standards for stormwater control control resystemsl,e detention problems, erosion control have changed facilities, and temporary significantly within this manual compared to previous requirements. Release rates have been significantly reduced and stormwater detention requirements have increased by a factor of 3 to 5 times . the 1990 The requirements for Hill Development generally w treatment King County Drainage Manual. In addition, water quality requirements and erosion control measures have been modified extensively. Although it was the general consensus by the Committee that these stantially reduce and degradation types of changes will sub theo additional g financial of properties within the City of Kent, burden to developers from both loss of additional land and increased construction costs was not researched, although it is anticipated to have ebe°mic research d further ther Imact. it was onclud and e additional that this issue may need too: modifications to the requirements made at a later date. It was also agreed that modification may be restricted since development will be required to meet Washington Fishery ' s requirementsn add/or the Puget Sound stormwater Management Manual by contain similar or more restrictive requirements . Therefore, the general criteria for stormwater management systems remained as originally proposed, except for minor changes and clarifications . Although the Review Committee believes that the manual is technically sound, the full result of the economic burden cannot be fully assessed at this time. However, changes made to the permitting process section are anticipated to help reduce the amount. of time it takes to obtain permits and thereby help compensate for overall development cost increases . In addition, it is hoped that the design manual will provide adequate information to the designer and developer to provide for consistency and help eliminate hidden costs to developers . Additional changes and 2 clarifications will need to be incorporated after the document has been. in use and additional comments are received. e CitY of Kent for The Review Committee would like to thank t proposed construction inviting it to advise and review . its sult of the Review Committee' s Standards. We believe that as a re review, a more comprehensive set of- Construction Standards has been produced for both the private and public sector. BY COMPANY ZZ -, A16. BY:]; COMPANY �{ PD /ti BY:- �� o� � � COMPANY BY: COMPANY �isb� C�✓sT2vcT�a�, P6 . BY: COMPANY BY COMPANY r 00D o2T C04PA�JY, BY:— COMPANY BY: COMPANY COMPANY -�%�� CNCINFG�.S���• COMPANY 3 STORMWATER STANDARDS MARCH 12, 1993 JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES:- There currently exists widespread problems throughout the City of Kent from lack of effective controls on increases in stormwater flow and pollution from new development. Understanding of the impacts .and the methods for control of stormwater has gradually progressed over the past two decades. The stormwater detention standards currently in use by ' the City were adopted in December of 1978 . Various watershed studies recently completed by the City thoroughly document the need 'for an improvement in our management .of stormwater both from a flooding and water pollution perspective. Similar findings nationwide and throughout the State of Washington have prompted the State Department of Ecology to propose statewide guidelines for stormwater management. On a nationwide basis, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is implementing control of stormwater . through a National Pollution Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) permit " program. In their implementation strategy for the NPDES program, the Department of Ecology will include the City of Kent in a watershed permit for the entire Green River watershed. A requirement of the City' s permit will be the development of a stormwater management program which at minimum, meets the State ' s guidelines . In the process of developing the proposed stormwater standards, all available information on existing problems, currently available control technologies and pending State and Federal requirements were carefully considered. Recognition was made that the various . regional stormwater facilities being designed and constructed under the utility C. I .P. program will for the most part, address any existing problems . Given the amount - of development which has already occurred, sites for regional stormwater facilities are extremely limited. Where such sites are available and funds provided in the C. I .P. program, the proposed standards allow exemptions for both detention and treatment requirements . In reaching a decision on the final recommended design criteria, City staff reviewed various alternatives presented by our stormwater consultants . These included comparisons of current Kent standards with Washington State Dept of Ecology, King County, King County steep slope and no standards. All options included the construction of proposed regional detention facilities . Within the hillside basin areas, the consultants recommended criteria similar to the King County steep slope standards . They felt that it was the only alternative which would significantly reduce the current serious stream and gully erosion problems as well as flooding. Staff however selected the alternative which was most similar to current King County standards, because it is already being required for development projects within King County which make up a significant portion of Kent' s drainage basins (i. e. , Garrison and Mill ,.Creek) . It was agreed that any stricter design requirements for the hillside basins needed to be reviewed further and agreed upon through an interlocal agreement with King County so that properties within each drainage basin (both counued in and City)the . be treated in the same manner. This will be p ursThe recommended standards will increase the size of the detention basins by about a factor of 3 to 5 . Within the Kent valley floor area the drainage analysis also included the evaluation of several design standard problems with the the hillside drainage basins. Because the drainage valley floor differ from those in the hillside areas, (primarily flooding as opposed to stream erosion, sedimentation and flooding in the hillside areas)Anal Analytical results results showed recommendations the King adjusted accordingly. Y ' County standards were largely ineffective in controlling runoff _ from- developing areas. The proposed regional facilities such as the Kent lagoons, can substantially reduce flows on the mainstream of Mill Creek, but probably will not solve local flooding problems on the minor tributaries to Mill Creek. At the same time, it is developments will not clear that greater on-site controls for new by itself reduce current, flood flows in Mill Creek. _ Therefore a combination of effective bn=site controls, regional facilities, and local conveyance improvements is necessary to prevent current flooding problems from getting worse. The recommended valley standards will require 3 to 4 times greater on-site detention storage volume than under the current Kent standards: This level of control is necessary in order to not exasperate existing flooding problems. The proposed stormwater construction standards are needed to enable the City to effectively manage their water resources and protect citizens and businesses from additional damage. Even though the recommended standards are a radical change from those adopted in 1978 , they are consistent with present King County standards and are primarily designed to not allow existing drainage conditions to worserr at the expense of allowing new development. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES - DE "MENT OF WILDLIFE HYDRAULiC CODE RULE REVISION April 1 Q, 1993 DRAFT NEW SECTION WAC 220-110-225 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Artificially created impervious surfaces increase stormwater run-off, resulting in changes to the flow and bed of waters of the state, adversely impacting fish fife. Run-off from impervious surfaces increases peak flow magnitude of storm run-off events. Rainfall infiltration is reduced or eliminated by impervious surfaces, causing surface flows to be decreased or eliminated during critical low flow periods. An HPA shall be required for projects that create impervious surfaces equal to or greater than '�,00o square feet, that are not otherwise excluded. Stormwater requirements will apply to construction of new impervious surface that exceeds the threshold and to new and existing impervious surfaces for reconstruction to the extent that stormwater runoff from the site is modified asa.result of the project The following project types shall be excluded from the requirement to obtain an HPA unless there are any activities within or across the ordinary high water line: a. Sites with no conveyance or release to surface waters of the state. b. Projects in any jurisdiction that adopts and implements the surface water quality and quantity minimum requirements in the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (SWMM), or approved revisions of the SWMM adapted to specific regional conditions. C. Projects in any jurisdiction that adopts and implements a functional equivalent to the surface water quality and quantity minimum requirements in the SWMM, or approved revisions of the SWMM adapted to speck regional conditions, and that provide adequate fish protection, as determined by the departments. d. Physical construction of single family residences e. Single-family shortplats at a density of less than 1 residence per 2.5 acres f. Projects with stormwater releases directly to marine waters, to fresh water lakes greater than 300 acres, and to rivers greater than 1,000 cis mean annual flow shall be conditioned only for water quality requirements, as identified in technical provision 2, below. g. Discharges to a regional stormwater detention facility that meets or exceeds a level of protection for fish resources approved by the Departments" h. Projects with stormwater releases directly to any system which is required to meet NPDES discharge requirements, such as an approved municipal wastewater treatment system, shall be conditioned only for water quantity requirements. i. For construction projects covered under an NPDES Baseline General Permit for Stcrmwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities: 1. An HPA is not required for erosion and sediment control for clearing and grading operations, unless there are project activities within the ordinary high water line. 2. An HPA is not required for water quality elements where an industry is covered under an NPDES permit for stormwater, although an HPA is required for water quantity, unless otherwise exempted. 3. An HPA is required for water quantity and quality control for impervious developed conditions not otherwise covered under an NPDES permit for stormwater (e"g., stormwater runoff from impervious surface not associated with the industrial component of the operation), unless otherwise exempted. j. Forest Practices regulated by the State of Washington Forest Practice Rules and Regulations, or forest practices on Federal lands. k. Maintenance of the bed of an approved stormwater facility unless the maintenance will impact the bed or flow of a watercourse, result in the release of sediments to a watercourse, or result in increased release rates of stormwater to watercourses downstream. 1. Other project proposals that, in the professional judgement of the Departments, will not impact fish life" HYUHAULP. I,UUc MULE nr. April 10, 1993 DRAFT Page 2 The requirement to obtain an HPA to address stormwater concerns applies to , but is not limited to, all commercial; all industrial; all multi-family housing; all subdivisions; and all single-family shortplats with densities greater than 1 residence per 2.5 acres that exceed the 5,000 square foot threshold, that are not otherwise excluded. The following technical provisions shall apply to stormwater projects. 1. Stormwater project applications shall contain methods to address water quantity impacts to surface waters. Stormwater HPAs shall be conditioned, consistent with the following technical requirements, based on the water quantity concerns and mitigation measures for each project: a. Applicants shall use a continuous simulation model or event-based hydrograph model for stormwater run-off computations. When using an event based hydrograph model In western Washington, a 24-hour storm shall be used and the calculated detention volume shall be Increased by a factor of safety as identified in the SWMM, which varies depending on percentage of the site which is impervious. b. Where soils are suitable, project applications shall include plans for infiltration of stormwater run-off. . c. Where soils are not suitable for infiltration, project applications shall specify that stormwater is detained and released to surface waters consistent with the following maximum release rate criteria: I. The peak release rate for the 2-year developed design storm shall not exceed fifty percent of the peak release rate for the 2-year pre-development design storm; or for situations where a continuous simulation model is used, at the applicants option, post-development flow duration shall match pre- development flow durations for flows between the 1.5-year peak pre-development flow and the 10- year peak pre-development flow. ii. The peak release rate for the 10-year developed design storm shall not exceed the peak release rate for the 10-year pre-development_design storm; and III. The peak release rate for the 100-year developed design storm shall not exceed the peak release rate for the 100-year pre-development design storm. 2. Stormwater project applications shall contain methods for treating stormwater prior to release to ground or surface waters: Stormwater HPAs shall be conditioned, consistent with the following technical requirements, based on the water quality concerns and mitigation measures for each project: a. Stormwater run-off shall be treated by passing the water through, in descending order of preference, constructed wetlands, wet ponds,'or biofiltration channels, as appropriate for site conditions, to remove fine sediment and contaminants. Other treatment methods may be acceptable, subject to review and approval by the departments. b. Project applications shall include erosion and sediment control measures for the complete time period when exposed soils are. present. Watershed basin plans approved by the department may be used to modify technical provisions 1 and 2 above, provided that the basin plan equals or exceeds the protection for fish life provided in these requirements. 3. Project applications shall contain an operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater facilities. The party, or parties, responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. The stormwater facility shall be maintained by the owner or other responsible party, to continue to meet design criteria. Maintenance will be conducted in a manner that does not impair fish life. STATE OF WASHINGTON - KING COUNTY 25436 —ss. City of Kent No. CONST .STANDA "Notice ofAvailability;of ; Affidavit of Publication Draft Corist.Standards:: The CiEy of:Keni is in the pro-1 cess.of reyiewirig and,updatmg its :Construction Standards. A The undersigned, on oath states that he is an 'committee,�bf,engineers, 'deyel- `opers,`:ai-, 11 o. tractors selected. authorized representative of The Daily Journal of Commerce, a W:y th' Public Works Depart-. daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general rnent;;are,';'taking part" in;the review. •: ; ; circulation and it is now and has been for more than six months Draf;copieg of the Standards; prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in are' available- at' the Public i Works'Erigirieering Department i the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Seattle, for review through February 12, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time 1993.-.For information contact the,Public Works Department,et - was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of 859.3383 publication of this newspaper. The Daily Journal of Commerce -Dates of publication in the Se p attle: ily,.;;Jou,rnal..`ofC6m- was on the 12th day of June, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper rnerce inuary.,19'and Febm- by the Superior Court of King County. aiy 2, 1993 2/2(25438) The notice in the exact form annexed, was published in regular issues of The Daily Journal of Commerce, which was regularly distributed to its subscribe:s during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a N/DRAFT CONSf .SiNDRD was published on 01/19/93 02/02/93 The amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of$ which amount has been paid in full. Subscribed and sw to before me on _3� \4otary Public for the Some of Wa h ngton, residing in Seattle Affidavit of Publication �vl •' l 114 IMM AN, `U C`m C to 1 0) U m .m'~ Z+7 'J 2 a : m •rnv ..m c ?y.. y . ' COm pm— Ztn .vy WLL�(Mp Tco V.Lm(7 m .. -,-C m p A:' -A 0-0 O O .YC .E Nm. ..to Oca O a0 O aU cx - . m - `� a o ¢ mmm�a C `E o =5ci T Y Qt— m II V O m.m.... 0 v L 0 m 3v o3,•g BELL °'rn m L xQ) Nw _ mN = ti -a 3 (D ° o O a) ro i O L U C O t -O L N 61 L a C - 'L O j Q Q 9 L z m (co C O O 3 O Q O [O T N .N T _? C 6) z ccm oQ O Y co `" o `° ° L O a (1C > O O 3 >0 73 ( C co C O a) -0 .ro a) ro ¢_ > Cl) mc � ro > m ro ro � U (n coc6 cn z a — m m (/) ro 'C ro Y N ( ro 17 coN QYLoc � 000 � � ° CJ _C) � �W >co O O Q-O C T O O ro T t C: 7 C c° aro °' ocroo ro Y 33aDao0) c n (D a N cn O L N C U O7"O °' 3Qc mroX L 41 Q c E 0 c ro - N c o 1 \ 0 rq ° a ^ o c > (1) CD 3 � u o V z y. Q) CO C .0 ro O c (5 J ro `� .o -0 Un cu t � F- N w m y Q, ro � � E ,o r E Q a) Q L � a � agoE - o a, CD m 0 N '•ro > o � Z O Q rn o U O U �_ U u Q `a -0 c c � U E C Q a - O ro ° 0 � ° � o O a) C = U O U N U O E _C: O �— C Q O b U C N m> � a -Q p a E ro .0 C Q O- au D 0 -C _= 6, N > cf) dL N C (D N C O) 0 N a U N O Y C c0 -p O O C: m e Ew .cCO May 4 , 1993 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Water Conservation Plan. AUTHORIZATION -to set he public hearing date on the City' s May 18 a s t proposed Water Conservation Plan, which amends the City' s existing Water Conservation Plan. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) Reith/cambridge Tank Repainting - Accept As complete. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Olsen Brothers for the Reith Road and Cambridge Water Tank Repainting and Safety Improvements . SIDEWALKS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks. This date has been set for the public hearing on LID 342 . Public Works Director Wickstrom pointed out the location and noted that the sidewalks will be between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South, on both sides of Smith Street: He said the total project cost is $96 , 926 . 50 , of which $30, 000 . 00 will be contributed by City Sidewalk funds and $66 , 926 . 50 will be LID funds . He said that owners representing 53 . 57% of the LID assessments are committed via LID no protest covenants . He added that there are approximately ten properties involved and that the assessments were based on front footage on Smith Street. He explained the procedure for payment of the assessments , noting that they can be. paid over a ten year period. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS j�IOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried . BENNETT THEN MOVED that the memorandum of the Public Works Director be made a part of the record and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance creating LID 342 which calls for the installation of sidewalks along Smith Street. Orr seconded and the motion carried . CONSTRUCTION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) STANDARDS Construction Standards . This date has been set for the public hearing on the Public Works Con- struction Standards . These standards which for the most part, started ot.it as the composition of various City adopted standards, are the results of a give-and-take process involving both a 3 May 4 , 1993 CONSTRUCTION development oriented review committee and a STANDARDS publicized call for comments . It is the Public Works Committee' s recommendation to proceed _ towards their adoption, if no significant comments are raised tonight; if significant e, their recommendation is to comments are mad refer the matter back to the Committee. City Engineer Gill noted that this document sets forth the permit requirements, the design criteria and the construction standards for all public and private roadway and utility improve- ment projects within the City and approved franchise areas. He explained how the document was developed and noted that the Construction Standards Review Committee has endorsed it, although they had concerns regarding the poten- tial economic impacts of the revised storm water standards. Gill summarized that section, and noted that the final recommendation from staff is very close to the existing King Conty hen Stanards Stan Wade, Construction Engineer, the changes made to the document. Upon the Mayor ' s question, Bill Wolinsky, Water Quality Engineer, explained that flexibility was built in to the water quality treatment requirements that allows for equivalent treatment by various tech- niques , as long as the treatment system meets the goals . Wickstrom added that certain exemptions are allowed. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MANN MOVED that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance for the adoption of the Public Works Construction Standards . Woods seconded and the motion carried. CABLE TV (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Cable TV Master ordinance. This ordinance establishes the City ' s general rights and obligations applicable to any Cable TV provider who chooses to do business within the City. City Attorney Lubovich noted that this was discussed at the last Council meeting and that no changes have been made to the document since then. 4 i ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent , Washington , repealing j Ordinance No. 1142 and enacting new j construction standards for public works related improvements in the City of Kent. I �i WHEREAS, the City last developed and enacted construction ; standards for public works related improvements on August 81 1962 ; and WHEREAS , since 1962 , construction techniques have changed dramatically, necessitating revision of the City, s construction . standards ; and WHEREAS , City Public Works Department staff has undertaken extensive review and analysis to develop revised construction standards that more properly conform with the needs and demands of current public works related improvements ; and WHEREAS , the City has published its proposed revised construction standards for public comment and review; and WHEREAS , a public hearing was held on May 4 , 1993 , after giving proper notice, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Kent City Council , wherein public comment was invited regarding the proposed revised construction standards ; and WHEREAS , at the close of the public hearing, the Kent City Council approved, by majority vote, adoption of the revised construction standards ; NOW, THEREFORE i 11 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: it Section 1 . Repealer. Ordinance 1142 of the City ofl'' Kent, creating and providing construction standards andi instructions to developers, adopted on August 6, 1962 , is hereby, repealed. j Section 2 . Construction Standards Adopted. The City' s 'i ( newly revised construction standards for public works related ; improvements, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted. Section 3 . 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 application to other persons or circumstances . Section 4 . 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 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ! ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY IIPASSED the day of , 1993 . I IiAPPROVED the day of 1993 . IPUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I iI 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. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK CONSTRCT.ord 3 jfp ORDINANCE NO. �I i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent , Washington, repealing i Ordinance No. 1142 , amending KCC § 14 . 02 . 030 (Ordinance No. 3052) , and enacting new construction standards for public works related improvements in the City of Kent. I ! WHEREAS, the City last developed and enacted construction!, standards for public works related improvements on August 8, 1962 ; and i 3 WHEREAS, since 1962 , construction techniques have changed l !i dramatically, necessitating revision of the City's construction ! standards; and i i WHEREAS, City Public Works Department staff has undertaken extensive review and analysis to develop revised' construction standards that more properly conform with the needsi and demands of current public works related improvements; and WHEREAS, because the City ' s Public Works Department in large part directs the issuance of Excavation and Grading permits, it has also been determined that the Director of Public Works should administer and enforce issuance of Excavation and Grading !� Permits under the authority of the Uniform Building Code and the f( newly revised construction standards ; and I � WHEREAS, continuing changes in construction techniques inl the future may require occasional adjustment to the revised construction standards ' appendices or may require interpretation ofj the construction standards ' applications ; and i i WHEREAS, the City has published its proposed revised construction standards for public comment and review; and i WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 4 , 1993 , after giving proper notice, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Kent City Council, wherein public comment was invited regarding the proposed revised construction standards; and ` WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the Kent City Council approved, by majority vote, adoption of the revised !, construction standards; and WHEREAS, upon the advice of the City' s legal counsel, ,II certain amendments to these standards have been added to invest: additional discretionary authority in the Director of Public Works . i for the ongoing administration of these construction standards; ! NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repealer. Ordinance 1142 of the City of Kent, creating and providing construction standards and instructions to developers, adopted on August 6, 1962 , is hereby ! i repealed. is Section 2 . Construction Standards Adopted. The City' s newly revised construction standards for public works related '; improvements, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein ', �I by this reference, are hereby adopted. I1 Section 3 . Ordinance 3052 Amended. Section 14 . 02 . 030 ofl it the Kent City Code (section 5 of Ordinance No. 3052) is hereby amended as follows: ;i II 2 I i I Sec. 14.02.030 . Building code appendices adopted. ( (^h s) ) Chapter 10, ( (ate) ) chapter 11. ( (a-nd) ) division II of chapter ( (-32-) ) 12 , ( (and) ) chapter 32 , and chapter 70 of the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition as adopted in section 14 . 02 . 0101, are adopted, except i that the Director of Public Works shall have the authoritv to enforce and interpret chapter 70 of the Appendix of the i R Uniform Building Code 1991 Edition and accordingly, all references to the "building official" in chapter 70 of the Appendix shall be substituted with the words. "Director of Public j Works. " ' 1 Section 4 . Enforcement/Interpretation. The City' s 'i director of Public Works is authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of these construction standards. The Director of Public Works shall also have the power to render interpretations ' and to adopt rules and regulations of these standards in order to clarify the application of their provisions. The Director of j Public Works interpretations, rules and regulations, however, shall ', be in conformance with the intent and purpose of these construction ) i standards. Section 5. Amendment of Appendices. The City' s Director ; lof Public Works is authorized to amend the appendices to the i construction standards from time to time as he or she may deem ; { necessary. However, any amendments to the appendices shall conform, with the intent and purpose of these construction standards. IE " Section 6. Purpose/Effect. The following statement of '; purpose and effect regarding these construction standards shall be added which shall appear before Section One, "Permits and ) Approvals" : This document sets forth the requirements and conditions ' that apply to all improvements or extensions of the City of Kent street, storm drainage and utility systems. Also it 3 I included are design requirements for private developments and their interface with the City of Kent utility, street, and drainage systems. It is the responsibility of the developer, developer' s engineer and contractor to follow these standards. For definition of terms, j' abbreviations, records or pronouns, refer to Section 2 . 1 herein. �I The City recognizes that Engineers must use their best judgement in design and construction decisions and must consider many factors including but not limited to external environmental constraints, existing geometry, sub-surface conditions, and others. As regards the City' s projects, the City faces the additional factor of jl limited economic resources which are constrained by the City' s taxing authority. This document should not be used to create legal liability for the City or its employees, but should provide for various engineering treatments depending on individual circumstances. I This document sets forth the requirements and conditions of new construction only, within the scope of the designated project. This document does not require that existing facilities which adjoin a new project be rebuilt to comply with these standards, but the Director of Public Works reserves the right to require upgrades in j any particular circumstances. Section 7 . Savings. Ordinance No. 1142 , which is repealed by this ordinance, and Kent City Code section 14 . 02 . 0301 i (section 5 of Ordinance No. 3052) , which is amended by this i ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until thel i i, effective date of this ordinance. it Section 8 . Severability. The provisions of this11 ji 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 ' i thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the , validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its p' application to other persons or circumstances. i! �! I Ii 4 (i I Section 9 . 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 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY i i PASSED the day of , 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . ! i 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. I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i I CONSTRCT_ord Ii 5 i i i � 1 \ 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: VENTURE 84 REZONE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Ordinance No. 3100 was passed by the City Council on April 20, 1993 . Because the exhibit attached thereto transposed ParcelsA and 41 oc'r B, and incorrectly identified the property, it is necessary to enact a new ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City of Kent to rezone the property. It is located on the west side of 84th Ave. So. , approximately 390 ft. north of South 222nd St. and is more specifically identified as the western 445 ft. of Parcel No. 7759800041. 3 . EXHIBITS: ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember " moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance No. -30S rezoning certain property located on the west side of 84th Avenue South approximately 390 ' north of South 222nd St. , and repealing Ordinance No. 3100 . DISCUSSION: kj_A0 ACTION• {tt+n Gti Council Agenda Item No. 4D i I'll i i I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Ordinance 3100 , passed on April 20, 1993 , and enacting a new Ordinance, 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 No. 7759800041. I WHEREAS , an applicant made a request to rezone 2 . 52 acres ; �I from the current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial , to M3 , General , Industrial , in order to construct a 46 , 080 square foot speculativei I warehouse building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department recommended that thel 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 , at its regularly scheduled 'i meeting on April 6 , 1993 concurred with the recommendations of the i Planning Department and Hearing Examiner, and found that such rezone should be granted subject to the Owner ' s compliance with the condition imposed by the Hearing Examiner, and directed the Cityl jAttorney to draft the appropriate ordinance; and �I i l i WHEREAS, The City Council enacted said Ordinance, known as Ordinance 3100, at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 20, 1993 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to repeal Ordinance 3100 because the Parcels identified in Exhibit A attached thereto transposed the legal descriptions of Parcel A and Parcel B and incorrectly identify the property which was the subject of the decision of the Hearing Examiner and the City council ; NOW THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOESI HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . That Ordinance 3100 be repealed. i Section 2 . That the Official Zoning Map of the City of ! Kent, as adopted by Ordinance, is amended to rezone from GWC, Gateway Commercial to M3 General Industrial , 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 222ndj Street, consisting of the western 445 feet of parcel No. 7759800041. the remaining portion of Parcel B and Parcel A which front 84th1 Avenue South will remain GWC zoning . Parcel A and B are fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein ash if fully set forth. I 1 I i I i i 2 ill II Section 3 . 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 1 analysis to determine appropriate mitigation. Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR � I I ATTEST: II i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK I i APPROVED AS TO FORM: II i i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I' PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I I ` i �� 3 i I 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 i i i — I i i I i `fI zonmap.ord - !! i ! ' 4 I EXHIHIT. L.. PARCEL A THE EAST 187.00 FEET OF TRACT 4 OF SHINN'S VALLEY HOME ADDITION 1-0 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 FELT 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 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, R'ASHIN'GTON, 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 P,'EST 25.00 FEET OF THE EAST 199.50 FF:FT 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 NEST 55.00 FEET OF THE EAST 67.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 4, AND OVER 1 HE, FILET OF A CURVE 1',]TH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET LYING NORTH AND EAST OF THE RADIUS POINT LOCATED 55M FEET SOUTH OF AND 87 FEET \VEST OF THE NORTHFAS I COP.i FR OF SAID TR=,CT 4. S 216TH ST 1N w S Cr 218TH ST x F cO r 0 rn m M 222NO 5T S 228TH 5T a 5 228TH 5T J. 0 w C O Z CV l _ APPLICATION NAME: Venture 84 !UMBER: #RZ-92-3 DATE: February 3, 1993 ;EQUEST: Rezone -At- LEGEND Application site 'icinity Map Railroad tracks Kent City Limits City of Kent - Planning Department S. 21 U Si l -� 2.= ❑ � Qapa 0 77 i 0 I � I APPLICATION NAME : venture 84 NUMBER: #RZ-92-3 DATE: February 3, 1993 IEOUEST: Rezone .�. LEGEND Application site ?oning/Topography Map Zoning boundary Kent City Limits 4 ' Kent City Council Meeting Date May 18 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: INTERIM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed resolution would adopt an Interim Potential Annexation Area, as recommended by the Planning Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (2-0 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 -ti,v moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Resolution No. 136% adopting an Interim Potential Annexation Area. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting an Interim Potential Annexation Area. WHEREAS, the King County Council adopted County-Wide Planning Policies pursuant to Ordinance 10450 on July 6, 1992 as required by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36 . 70A. 210) ; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent ratified the County-Wide Planning Policies pursuant to Resolution No. 1326 on September 15, 1992 ; and WHEREAS , the Growth Management Act requires that each county designate Urban Growth Areas ; and WHEREAS , the County-Wide Planning Policies establish an Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent established an Interim Growth Boundary pursuant to Resolution No. 1334 ; and WHEREAS , the County-Wide Planning Policies state that although the Growth Management Act does not explicitly equate Urban Growth Areas with municipal annexation areas, the Urban Growth Areas around cities may be considered potential expansion areas for cities ; and WHEREAS , the City of Kent ' s adopted Interim Growth Boundary Area encompasses an area that might be considered as being coterminous with future annexation areas for the City; and WHEREAS, County-Wide Planning Policy LU-19 states, "In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. " ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The City of Kent hereby declares and designates an Interim Potential Annexation Area, as set forth in the map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which area essentially contains the same boundary as the City ' s adopted Interim Growth Boundary. section 2 . The Planning Department is hereby directed to work with King County and adjacent cities and in consultation with residential groups affected by Kent ' s Interim Potential Annexation Area in order to define the final Potential Annexation Area. section 3 . The Planning Department is hereby directed to bring forth to the City Council for adoption the final Potential Annexation area after complying with the directives of Section 2 of this resolution . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1993 . 2 Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . 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, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK interim.res 3 d \� sf+ 0 1 xa ��JJII � v a � I, J 3'uLL �v�r+.�---- v"`u•--1`r --�I �u� `�i I..."��rF� —�L r�_� I � �_ —1.� ALul r r � cig In { a EXHIBIT A I` 1-y; Kent City Council Meeting � { Date May 18 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PERMIT PROCESS DIRECTION V`0� 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As discussed at the Council Workshop of April 26, 1993 , Re olution No. 1348 (adopted by the Council on March 16, 1993) is brought back to the Council for reconfirma- tion or modification. Only four Councilmembers were able to attend the workshop, so no direction was given at the meeting. If 4L® CounciltPdesires, Administration is prepared to implement the resolution as written within the time frames stated. Administration' s proposal is atta�"as well as the proposal provided by Councilmember Jon Johnson. tnclu&ed to -tlic_ a,,4,"a p 0.LILc-r, 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution No. 1348 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (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 to confirm the direction of Resolution No. 1348 and to direct Administration to implement within 60 days. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4F TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMIT PROCESS DIRECTION MAY 18, 1993 I. Resolution to Establish One Organization for the Permit Process II. Administration's Permit Process proposal III. Department Head Input on One Organization for Permit Process IV. Councilman Jon Johnson's Permit Process Proposal V. Mayor's Advisory Committee Report on the Permit Process VI. Department Head Report on the Permit Process VII. City Management Committee Reorganization Plan as it Relates to Permit Process VIII. Letters from Interested Parties (1/1/91 to present) RESOLUTION NO. � 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. Sect 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 Ow 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. 0 ��M.I12�c51�� E. Ensure that the new ,tea will strive to maintain an integral level of coordination with the Fire Department to attain the highest level of public safety. 3 F, Perform these tasks within sixty (60) days of Council direction 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 Y 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 4 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, the day of , 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK advccam.res 5 City of Kent, Washington 1993 Final Budget ib LL LL LL 5 d .0 �Q¢� �5 d V- J' ud LL LL LL LL S� '�❑ a �V� �' LL LL LL LL d A!MMv °�. C ❑�6 ':U::: a tJ V_E y �` W LL LL LL LL NY v) . �/� a4 LL LL LL LL 2 y Z�.CC U. Wa LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL ULL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Z Lu O ] LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL W W W W W W W..\ 5 ' N m U, y]f ] W] u]J 6 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL W :': S T ¢ ¢ CY CY LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL = 'v,- LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL uj � � � � L� 'O � �� LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL r �' CL ❑ LL LL LL LL LL LL LLLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LLZ [Q:' vrS �T. wwwwwwww LU r �a LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL. T� _ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Q ZyZ� LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL iaU O W W W W W W W Y.. „I LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL �' �G aLU 3 ... ... ) OgO Om m0 W�WMWaW.Wnj J2 JZ ' W N N C7��yyJJ$c$❑7❑❑mm qp (yJ Z .5m Zt2 d?U �yN WY WL S — 5YC e §j 1t0 Z�ZWLNL N U > 0 2 U z 4 I J d' Subiect: ADMINISTRATION'S PERMIT PROCESS PROPOSAL Cr ,or: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Dated: 05/11/93 at 2032 . 1 : COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS AND COUNCILMEMBERS: AT YOUR MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1993 , YOU ADOPTED RESOULTION 1348 ESTABLISHING A SINGLE ORGANIZATION FOR THE PERMIT PROCESS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COUNCIL DIRECTION TO BE GIVEN ON APRIL 20TH. THE APRIL 20TH DIRECTION HAS BEEN DEFFERRED TO THIS MEETING PENDING THE OUTCOME OF AN APRIL 26TH MEETING WITH COUNCILMEMBERS, MAYOR KELLEHER, ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT HEADS, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, LOCAL DEVELOPERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. SINCE THE APRIL 26TH MEETING THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND I HAVE MET AND I HAVE ASKED EACH TO PROVIDE ME A PLAN FOR ONE ORGANIZATON FOR THE PERMIT PROCESS. THEIR PROPOSALS ARE ATTACHED. EACH PROVIDES VALUABLE INSIGHT INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A ONE ORGANIZATION PROCESS . I FEEL A COMBINATION OF THEIR PROPOSALS IS WHAT BEST MEETS THE CITY'S NEED. THAT PROPOSAL WOULD BE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION DIVISION AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSAL AND INCLUDING THAT WITH THE PLANNING SERVICES FUNCTION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANNING PROPOSAL TO FORM A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS STEP THOUGH MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME SINCE ADDITIONAL RAMIFICATIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN ADDITION TO OTHER ORGANIZATION CHANGES AS PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. THEREFORE ADMINISTRATION IS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING AS AN INITIAL STEP PENDING REVIEW DURING THE DEVELOPMENT STAGES BY THE DT RTMENT HEADS AND THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AUTHORIZE AN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS FROM THE EXISTING STAFF OF THE BUILDING SECTION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. AS DESCRIBED IN THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT, THE OFFICE WILL REPORT TO ADMINISTRATION DURING THE DEVELOPMENT STAGES WHICH WOULD BE AT LEAST THROUGH 1993 . COMBINE THE FIRE PREVENTION SECTION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THE TRAINING DIVISION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ASSIGN ASSISTANT CHIEF MARV BERG TO HEAD THE NEW PREVENTION AND TRAINING DIVISION. CHIEF BERG WOULD FILL THE VACANT POSITION LEFT WHEN ASSISTANT CHIEF KEVIN KEARNS LEFT THE CITY ON A 2 YEAR LEAVE OF ABSENSE TO TAKE A POSITION AT VALLEY COM. SELECT AN ENGINEER/ARCHITECT IN AN IN HOUSE RECRUITMENT FROM EXISTING CITY EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS "INTERIM" PROJECT MANAGER AS DESCRIBED IN THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT. THE PERSON WOULD FILL THE POSITION LEFT VACANT BY THE REASSIGNMENT OF CHIEF BERG. THIS RESTRUCTING SHOULD MEET ALL THE GOALS OF MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT WITHOUT SEVERE DISRUPTION TO THE ORGANIZATION. AS STATED IN THE REPORT IT IS AN INTERIM SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW ORGANIZATION. AS SUCH IT ALLOWS FOR PERMANENT CHANGES TO BE DEFERRED TO THE DIRECTION OF A NEW MAYOR BASED ON ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM STAFF AND INVOLVEMENT BY THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS May 7, 1993 TO: Tony McCarthy .1D j Lc) FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Permit Process As I indicated at the workshop and reiterated to some degree at our meeting, there is a heavy interrelationship between the Public Works Department and New Development. Many developments and nearly all the major ones require some sort of infrastructure improvement whether it be sewer, water, drainage or street. Such improvements involve plans, deeds, easements, agreements, bonds, etc. Additionally, these improvements need to correlate to our various utility and/or street comprehensive plans. As an example, on-site storm drainage control is a necessary part of the solution to solve our flooding problems. Similarly, access control along with Traffic Impact mitigation is critical in making our streets friendlier. As such, if the long range goal is to work towards a permit center then we need to be involved therewith. With this in mind, my proposal is reflected in the attached Organization Chart. Essentially, it pulls our Construction Section out of Engineering and combines it with the Building Division to form a new Public Works Division. This Division would be headed by Stan Wade. Were this the selected direction, naturally more refinements and/or adjustments would be necessary, not to mention a salary adjustment for the newly created division head position. D266 J W Q --- Y U W V � V F- U Z r ❑ a N J V U o z m a z U O O ❑ J U m r � Z Z w � d --1 U > Q] I W, Q W. ❑ � W Z o------------ cn cr i z la/1 ____.._____ ❑O Z K z Y z w o � o 7 a J m I F m U Y I Q O a J I o lu r W N Z UIW U W � Z U W T I 'U❑ V Q Z // � \\\ I / ❑s t w U I � II �I via J I m I I jI,IZ a W o a I ✓1 U Zo-LO LLJ V � I O Z I a WV�wU W Z LI I LI O _I � U U rzw L_L o 0 � u VIo� p W r V "l z Z a u z z o u z a a �IZ U Cl CL Vt w Q F I I I � I Z W Ci W U Z Q W Z V I F 2 Z } � O N r z i� d1 N J ❑ a Li � a' n � o W a 0 RECEIVE® MAY 7 1993 May 7 , 1993 CITY ADMINISTRATION MEMO TO: Tony McCarthy, Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Jim Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: Permit Process It appears that your current proposal is to move the permit process into the Public Works Department with an engineer from that department in charge who would try to implement the Advisory Committee ' s report. In my opinion that could only be a workable solution if the following also happened: 1. Personnel in the building function remain where they are now located; 2 . Fire inspectors remain where they are located; 3 . Planners remain where they are located; 4 . Realistic time lines are maintained vis a vis the work load; 5. Staffing levels are maintained at a level whereby the work load can be adequately addressed. This scenario is really a management one wherein the engineer in Public Works oversees the day to day function of the permit process, suggesting modifications to the system as needed. The engineer/manager would report to the Public Works Director. My approach to creating a new permit processing function is a little bit different. I would place the permit process in the Planning Department under a division titled Development Services. The Development Services division would consist of the Building function, (which is currently part of Code Enforcement) inspections and a slot for code enforcement which might come along in the future (this is not the same code enforcement of which the building function is currently a part of) . The Building Official would be in charge of the division, at least at the outset. The division would report to the Planning Director. This scenario would be a natural because almost all of the City' s organization that deals with the built environment is under one management framework (all except utilities and streets) . Planning policy, which advises through the City Council as to how the City will develop, is directly linked to how that policy is actually carried out through implementation. Implementation including zoning, subdivisions, SEPA, etc. and on to the nitty gritty of issuing a permit to do the actual building is tied in with the original overall policy with a certain degree of flexibility as to how this implementation is carried out (even though the uniform building code is less flexible than the zoning code, etc) . To help make the new organizational proposal a success, I suggest that a steering committee be established. The steering committee would work with the new permit organization during the initial start-up to help identify issues and priorities. It could also serve as a liaison to the Chamber of Commerce. Later, when the overall City organization program is revisited, I would propose that all of the Planning Department functions go into a community development organization. This would include the permit process and human services . Enclosed is an organizational chart that graphically shows my proposal. � S Y Q_ tj f( 1zo �eNs � Q � � s �J 7 � Qj p Q � W � � �f LIL NJ LU c�-V) a RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 MEMORANDUM CITY ADMINISTRATION MAY 7 , 1993 TO: TONY McCARTHY, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: ORGANIZATION THOUGHTS FOR PERMIT PROCESS REORGANIZATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony, it seemed, based upon the Mayor ' s Advisory Report, the resolution and other plans contemplated by Administration that there could be a wide number of scenarios taken from the Advisory Report. Therefore, I will try to keep my comments as generic as possible. • With respect to having a single organization, it seemed to me that a close link between Planning Plan Checkers and Building Plan Checkers is important. You may want to talk to Jim Harris as to his views of whether and how Planning personnel might be integrated in such a reorganizational structure. • Out of necessity, the Fire Department will still need to be part of the permit processing and related functions. For instance, we play a key role in dealing with matters related to Hazardous Materials. Hazardous Materials is just one area whereby all three departments have distinct responsibilities, but correlated roles. Department Heads will need to continue to interact to ensure the effectiveness and success of any plan. We will need key people at the mid-management level to set up a method of coordination and feedback on issues such as large permits, Hazardous Materials, etc. • Our staff is stretched as thin as we can be. The existing staff has had to redistribute various support functions between the mid-managers and various line personnel. The key here is that if the organization is split, the most likely scenario is that the Permit Specialists and the 1. 5 Receptionist/Support Personnel would go with the building unit. Given all of the functions that would remain with the Fire Department - Fire Prevention, Public Education, Fire and Arson Investigation, Fire Plan Checking, new construction and annual fire inspections, Sara Title III, Hazardous Materials Management, Disaster Planning and Management as well as some administrative Memo to Tony McCarthy May 7 , 1993 Page 2 functions, it will be important to maintain an Assistant Chief in Fire Prevention. It will also be important to provide administrative staff support for us in the new organization since previously shared personnel will no longer work for that unit. I would anticipate the need for one additional clerical person at a high level for the Prevention division. Further, in all likelihood the priorities of the personnel transferred to the new organization will be changed to meet the goals described in the Mayor' s Advisory Report. This will require adequate administrative support for the Building unit. • I could think of a couple of scenarios that might allow for the filling of vacancies that exist currently in the Fire Department, while minimizing costs. How this is handled is crucial to the Mayor' s Advisory Report ' s criteria of maintaining an adequate level of public safety while meeting the other criteria of costumer service and supporting large projects as well as small projects (TI ' s etc. ) . It is important to maintain level of public safety for both the Fire Prevention and Suppression divisions. Also because of the need to further redistribute and delegate responsibilities to other positions, it will be necessary to look at some relatively small adjustments in compensation and/or rank structure. I would be glad to provide specifics but once again it may require discussions with the Union and Council. • I believe the reorganization would be better served having the new organization headed up by an existing Department Head. However; in any organization plan, it is critical that the Building Official have full authority and direct supervision of the Building unit and related permit process. In any configuration, that person will have the most knowledge and ability to make the change a success. Added to this, the Building Official needs the authority to fill Plans Checker, Inspector, Administrative Support vacancies and the knowledge that future related vacancies would be filled. • With respect to budget, several areas may be relatively simple in any reorganization scenario: For example, it will be easy to identify individual costs such as Memo to Tony McCarthy May 7, 1993 Page 3 transferred staff and related vehicles. However, there will be other funds that will be difficult to separate and leave either unit with enough funds to operate in basic areas (e.g. support equipment, office supplies, training funds) . It will take two things to make it work: mutual cooperation (which should be no problem) and adequate funding. It would seem from previous discussions, Council would support funding adequate staffing and resources to make this change functional to maintain public safety while enhancing other services. a I would recommend that all staff be left in their current physical location. The existing staff will need to interact continually with the same people under any reorganization proposal . It would reduce service if there were significant physical moves. - In the meantime, budget and coordination functions would be ironed out. • The three affected departments need to mitigate the impacts of the permit process reorganization on their other remaining functions in order for the reorganization to be successful. Vacancies must be filled if there is any hope to keep timelines from elongating further. • It would be good to evaluate the reorganized permit process in six months to determine if it has improved or lessened service levels. This can be done utilizing the tracking system and desired levels of service identified by the Council. This appears to be compatible with previous recommendations by the Mayor' s Advisory Committee. • With respect to differing from the Mayor' s Advisory Report, as I mentioned previously, I believe the new organization should report to an existing Department Head. If not to the Fire Chief, then it should report to the Planning Director. The reason for this is that given the new Engineering Checklist for smaller projects, most of the coordination falls between Memo to Tony McCarthy May 7 , 1993 Page 4 Planning, Building and Fire. Also, by having the new organization report to an existing Department Head, we can maintain continuity, eliminate the need for a new management position and focus resources more on service delivery. As I mentioned to you at our last meeting, and as acknowledged by Jim Harris and Don Wickstrom, it is not likely engineers would have the experience or familiarity with the codes and related processes that are more closely correlated to Planning, Building and Fire code processes. • It is important that training be adequately funded and conducted, as identified in all the permit process proposals, by recent observations of Council and by the ongoing reduction of staff being experienced throughout the City. As we encounter further turnover and increased demand for service, training becomes more critical throughout the department. tcn cc: Jim Harris Don Wickstrom PRESENTED BY JON JOHNSON PROPOSAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY COMBINE PERMIT PROCESS UNDER ONE ORGANIZATION MISSION : To ensure coordination of the Permit Process to improve its efficiency and accountability, while providing for public health and safety. PROPOSAL: I . Existing Building unit would be incorporated within the existing Planning Department . a. Planning Director would: * assume lead role in Permit Process coordination; * continue to coordinate process with Public Works and Fire Departments as needed. * modify assignments within Planning as necessary and and determine what resources are needed to meet department needs . b. Building Official would manage the Building Division, and staff . * Coordinate process with the representatives of Public Works and Fire Department on large projects and other related permit issues . * Report to the Planning Director. II . Planning Director will report to next Council Planning Committee on June 1st with plan for implementation. Planning Committee will make recommendation to Council for action at Council Meeting on June 15 . a . Planning Director will coordinate with Fire Chief and Public Works Director in development of plan. b. Planning Director in cooperation with the Fire Chief will evaluate positions in Planning and Building Divisions to determine staff, resources , training and budget needed to effectively and functionally transfer the Building unit to Planning . C . Fire Chief will evaluate remaining functions in Fire Code Enforcement Division to develop plan for adequacy of staff resources, assignments , training and budget to effectively coordinate with the new organization and insure other public safety functions are not compromised. III . No immediate changes in physical location of staff, records and related work space should be needed. IV. The new organization would also deal with Planning, general nuisance and building code type complaints . Public Works will continue to deal with weed and vegetation complaints while the Fire Department will deal with complaints related to fire functions . V. New organization to be re-evaluated at the end of the year. At that time, the new Administration would determine if further modification or direction is needed . VI . Establish a Oversight Committee to monitor progress , make recommendations to improve process . Committee membership to include private sector, citizens and city staff . VII . Establish Specific time lines for single-family permits , and tenant improvements . With money back guarantee . VIII . Establish Customer Service to be top priority . Develop plans to provide necessary education and training . ADVANTAGES : 1 . City is able to achieve desired improvements without major disruptions of service . 2 . Department Heads and customers will have opportunity for input and to plan operational adjustments to ensure success of new organization and other areas of responsibility. 3 . Responsibility and functions for the processing of most permits will be consolidated in one organization with one Department head to coordinate the resolution of conflicts . 4. No additional employees will be laid off and vacancies necessary to deliver the desired level of service will be filled. 5 . The reorganized department could be continued or modified based upon future evaluations . 6 . This plan does not disrupt the large project plan review process currently in place . 7 . This plan will improve customer services , employee morale and organization stability . MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/AD - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: PERMIT PROCESS Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Dated: 03/16/93 at 1035 . THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING IS TO REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORT TO MEET THE COUNCIL'S 1992 / 1993 TARGET ISSUE: TO ENHANCE THE DELIVERY OF CITY SERVICES BY IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PERMIT PROCESS . THIS ISSUE HAS LONG BEEN OF A CONCERN OF THE CITY COUNCIL. LONG BEFORE THE CENTENNIAL BUILDING WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER, 1990 THE COUNCIL REQUESTED A ONE STOP PERMIT CENTER. IN 1990 THE CITY COMMISSIONED AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT STUDY, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS RECOMMENDED A SEPARATE OFFICE OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. IN 1991 THE MAYOR COMMISSIONED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE PERMIT PROCESS AND THEIR REPORT ISSUED IN MAY, 1992 RECOMMENDED THE CREATION OF AN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS . THIS REPORT, THE MOST DEFINIATIVE ON THE SUBJECT, IS THE ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE PERMIT PROCESS. THE REPORT IDENTIFIES THE FOLLOWING 6 RECOMMENDATIONS BEGINNING ON PAGE 3 . THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TO: 1) IMPLEMENT THE 1992-1993 COUNCIL TARGET ISSUE TO: ENHANCE DELIVERY OF CITY SERVICES BY IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PERMIT PROCESS ^` COMBINE BASIC MULTI DEPARTMENTAL BUILDING PERMIT FUNCTIONS AND PERSONNEL INTO AN INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS . 3) RECOGNIZE THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AS AN IMPORTANT INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL WELL BEING SUCH THAT IT IS A TOOL TO ENHANCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 4) DIRECT ANALYSIS AND EVENTUAL GROUPING OF SIMILIAR DEVELPOMENT REVIEW FUNCTIONS TO ELIMINATE PROCESS DELAYS AND DUPLICATION AND REQUIRE LESSER NUMBERS OF PERSONNEL FOR OVERALL PERMIT PROCESSING. 5) SELECT AN INTERIM PROJECT MANAGER WHO IS EITHER A LICENSED ARCHITECT OR CIVIL ENGINEER AND HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN PERMITTING. 6) USE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS NEW OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR REVISION OF OTHER PERMIT RELATED PROCESSES . THIS REPORT HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE SINCE MAY , 1992 AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPURTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE . THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ALTERNATIVE FOCUSES ON MAINTAINING THE EXISTING ORGANIZATION IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH AN ASSIGNED PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNER AND A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST FOR PRE APPLICATION SIGNOFF. THIS ALTERNATIVE TALKS ABOUT IMPROVING THE TIME LINES BUT DOES NOT GET TO THE HEART OF A ONE STOP PERMIT CENTER. THE ALTERNATIVE MIGHT WORK, BUT THE CITY OF KENT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A ONE STOP PERMIT CENTER THOUGH IT HAS BEEN A COUNCIL DESIRE SI'" ' THE LATE 1980 'S . ADMINISTRATION FEELS THAT THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE PR. . ,�SAL IS THE RIGHT STEP TO IMPLEMENT THE COUNCIL DESIRE . THE COMMITTEE PROPOSAL AIMS AT IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PERMIT PROCEESS AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNCIL TARGET ISSUE. TO DO SO, IT DIRECTS THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO ONE DEPARTMENT WITH A COMMON GOAL AND 'RIORITY - TO PROCESS PERMITS AND DO INSPECTIONS . THIS CONSOLIDATED DEPARTMENT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR TRACKING PERMITS BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS . PROVIDE A CENTRAL CONTACT FOR CUSTOMERS INQUIRING ABOUT THE STATUS OF A PERMIT SAVE INSPECTION TIME AS INSPECTORS BECOME CROSS TRAINED TO PERFORM MULTIPLY INSPECTIONS CURRENTLY DONE BY INSPECTORS IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS FOCUS THE TOTAL PERMIT PROCESS TOWARD ENHANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHILE INSURING CODE COMPLIANCE ALLOW THE CITY TO RIGHTSIZE THE ORGANIZATION WHILE DOWNSIZING THE NUMBER OF STAFF ALLOW THE CITY TO HIRE AN INDIVIDUAL MOST QUALIFIED TO UNDERSTAND THE BUILDING ISSUES BY REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO BE A LICENSED ARCHITECT OR CIVIL ENGINEER ALLOW THE CITY TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR RIGHTSIZING OTHER PERMIT ACTIVITY AND OTHER FUNCTIONS THUS , THE ADVANTAGES OF THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSAL ARE NOT ONLY THAT THE PERMIT PROCESSING TIME IS IMPROVED BUT THAT THE CITY IS MOVED TO A NEW DIRECTION IN PROVIDING EFFICIENT SERVICES TO THE KENT COMMUNITY. THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT, AS IT STATES , IS A FIRST STEP TOWARD A ONE STOP PERMIT CENTER AND TO CONCURRENT IMPROVEMENTS IN ALL PERMIT PROCESSING ACTIVI`. IT ALSO STATES THAT IT SETS A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER CITY IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY UNDER STUDY BY THE CITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. THE PERMIT PROCEES THOUGH, HAS HAD ITS REVIEW AND THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSAL SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY. IMPLEMENTATION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONCEPT OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION AND IS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH IN THE REPORT BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. ADMINSITRATION REQUESTS COUNCIL CONCURRANCE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE PERMIT PROCESS . THIS ACTION WILL AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISH OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS WHICH DURING DEVELOPMENT STAGES WILL REPORT TO ADMINISTRATION UNDER AN INTERIM PROJECT MANAGER'S AUTHORITY . ''.: � ' y .i P *...:, ...LA{,i�:VwY.1.i.•a.Jsn�t'T...•,.1-�.3:'�7S.Hf'.Y�.�!%1 L.Jl....Ii.��. .'4...1..1. C .1�. -�.i,.r .��....,:\�il.'��.�bnr<�.�Y. � .t.1� '� ', s � �..... V•�w�t"1 t' V� 1�� W b f i,r� l� - t., > -{. v a vrf�m�"A�� �i �..�-1 1 4 [ 1 �. I.. A , p.Y_ Itt pu�•y�� S� .�a4 1 1 i CITY OF KENT MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE PERMIT PROCESS lI Final Report ' PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS :Y ectlOTI I X iI N� J ` i Kent Administration May 28, 1992 J J f J - CITY OF KENT MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE PERMIT PROCESS FINAL REPORT Proposal and Recommendations Kent City Administration May 28 , 1992 MAYOR Dan Kelleher CITY ADMINISTRATOR Ed Chow PERMIT COMMITTEE Paul Morford, Chairman Paul Mann, Kent City Council Torjan Ronhovde, AIA, Architect John Murdoch, Boeing Permit Services Ted Knapp, Bircher Development Ed Chow, City Administrator Raul Ramos , Planning Consultant TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 Mission Statement 3 Council Target Issue: 1992-1993 3 Summary of Recommendations 3 A. COMMITTEE'S PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION: REORGANIZATION 8 1. Organization Characteristics 8 2. Operational Description 10 3. Proposed Organization Chart 13 4. Initial Steps to Implement 13 5. Office Organization Chart 14 6. City-wide Organization Chart: Revised 15 B. ACTION PLAN 1. General Timeline 17 APPENDIX 1 . Articles 2. Flow Charts: permit process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December, 1991, Mayor Dan Kelleher appointed a citizen Permit Process Committee to review the existing development approval process, in particular the review and processing of Building Permit Applications, to help identify major problems areas and make recommendations that would assist in "streamlining the process" and increase efficiency without underminding health and safe concerns . The Mayor openly stated his concern to the committee that although previous citizen and staff work had occurred on this issue, it had not resulted in a satisfactory approach to streamline the process . He has asked the committee to briefly review these prior actions and ultimately come forward with their own set of recommendations for his consideration and implementation. Since the Kent City Council has established a "revision of the permit process as one of their Top Target Issues for the 1992-1993 year, the Mayor would want the committees input so administration can work with the council on this important issue. The Committee has met since December at least once a month and sometimes twice a month to discuss basic permit issues . Early meetings included discussions on the results of prior work done by staff, Chamber of Commerce and the Warner Group Study on the permit process, regarding improvements to the permit process. Additional discussions centered around the type of complaints most voiced by professional users as well as average citizens who have sought building permits for varied purposes , for example tenant improvements, major projects, house additions and custom home constructions . These discussions also focused on the question of why the city continues to have delays in processing permits even during the current slow period of permit activity. The committee believed that the city should more fully exercise its authority to process permits more quickly to maximize revenues , particularly in light of the on-going budgetary constraints . In pursuing answers to these questions, the Committee had the unique opportunity of interviewing key permit staff and also analyzed raw permit application data and began to develop comparative timeline graphs that have helped to illustrate what areas have experienced major delays . It was duly noted by some of the members that in some cases, the permit staff has received incomplete applications or a lack of response for additional data, and in these cases the application has taken longer than average to process . Nevertheless , the focus of the committee has been to review the institutional aspects of the current building permit 1 process and develop recommendations that would help to improve efficiency and public accountability. In its final discussions, the committee developed a set of recommendations and a principal proposal for reorganization that would "revise" the permit process and thereby help enhance delivery of city services without underminina public health or safety. INTRODUCTION Mission Statement The mission of the Mayor ' s Advisory Committee on the Permit Process is. . . to review the existing development approval process , in particular the review and processing of building permit applications, to help identify potential solutions to major problem areas and make recommendations therefrom that would assist the Mayor and City Council to attain a streamlined permit Process which embodies sound management practices that improve efficiency, equitability and fiscal accountability without undermining due process, and health and safety concerns . _Council Target Issue: 1992-1993 The City Council has established overall improvement to the permit process as one of its Top Priorities for 1992-1993 . It ' s commitment to making improvements to the existing permit process has been listed under the Top Priority category titled: 5 . Enhance Delivery of City Services : Effectiveness and Efficiency. a. Revision of permit process In addition, it should be stated that the committee ' s proposal on the permit process is also consistent with the companion council target issue of developing an employee Downsizing Plan. The proposal attempts to address this through the combination of similar functions and personnel and elimination of at least two and maybe six positions . Summary of Policy Recommendations The Committee reviewed a broad range of permit issues and developed a set of recommendations for presentation to the Mayor. These proposed policies and recommendations are listed below: 1 . Council Target Issue. Policy Direction - In order to revise or Streamline the Permit Process" , a council resolution or ordinance should be prepared immediately to include policy statements as described in the following item T 3 . J 2 . Reorganization. The Mayor and City Council should pursue a major reorganization of the permit process by combining basic multi-departmental building permit functions and personnel into an independent Office of Development Permits and Inspections . The existing Building Section now part of the Code Enforcement Division would be replaced by the new office of Development Permits and Inspections . It would be independent of the Fire Department and report directly to the city administrator during the developmental stages. It would be manned by existing building permit personnel and a (transferred) "zoning counter" Planner. This combination precludes the need for these positions being refilled in the contributing departments. It is proposed, as a result of the new Office, at least six (6) positions throughout fire, building and planning will not be needed and therefore should not be refilled. This baseline organization should over time assume authority over other related permit services and permit personnel to ultimately form a true "One Stoo Permit" system. A baseline organization is defined as an organizational entity that has a minimal number of employees who have been intensely crossed trained to perform and conduct similar multi-functions and activities. It is not chiefly driven by the government institution belief that if you want better public service, then hire more people. 3 . Budgetary Policy. The city should adopt a formal resolution to establish a progressive policy on the permit process and its importance to the budgetary process . The Resolution, for example, should state " the permit review process is an important integral fiscal component of the budget process . The city believes it is sound fiscal policy for the permit process to be reorganized and improved to increase efficiency and quality services . It is in the city ' s best interest to further this reorganization in order to maximize collection of fee revenues to support these services and, more importantly to enhance economic development opportunities by facilitating the location and start-up operations of new businesses which traditionally generate significant municipal revenues through property valuations and sales receipts. " The city council should be requested to approve this type of resolution as a 4 mandate to all departments to enhance public accountability in our permit process. 4 . Warner Group study on the permit review process. The Committee has reviewed the Warner Group Study on the Permit Review Process and recommends adoption of some of its findings and recommendations . These recommendations have been modified by the Committee to reflect their concerns . They are listed below: a. Transfer of building and non-fire-marshal code enforcement functions and personnel from the fire department to a new office of Development Permits and Inspections to be located physically within the existing Code Enforcement offices area. During the developmental stages, this office should be under the Administration and "interim" project manager ' s authority. It should be given cross- departmental authority to coordinate other specific review functions of existing personnel in other departments . However , the intent is to create ultimately a separate entity with departmental status . (see reorganization proposal in report) b. Planning, Public Works and Building need to have all their development permit review functions analyzed, inventoried and defined to achieve desired economies of scale. By grouping similar review functions among lessor numbers of personal in one office space, the city can eliminate duplication, excess cost and of course delays . C. To effectively implement the council ' s priority, the Administration should maintain reporting and coordinating responsibility over the person designated as project manager for the permit process task. 5 . "Interim" Project Manager. The mayor and city council should immediately select a Project Manager (PM) , preferably not from city personnel , to begin formation of the new office of Development Permits and Inspections . The preferred PM should have extensive experience in permits and be either a licensed Architect or Civil Engineer . 5 6 . other Departmental Reviews . Creation of this new office of Development Permits and Inspections will set the precedent for future revisions in the permit related functions of other departments. However, there is expected to be a certain level of immediate and concurrent improvements to interdepartmental permit functions such as, permit tracking, monitoring, setting review meetings, establishing target dates for reviews, and centralizing interdepartmental distribution of public information throughout the entire city development review process . 6 CURRENT MAJOR — OF' EXISTING DF'sPl�RTMENTS � FDiC Chit F ' A SfLSTA..T C11Ri ASSLTr,yw ,_pv 1 Trlrl•Or J.flrSrr Y•f a•• s.rr.d-1 1 i T.lrlrt vtmm.Vc omcLLv LzL ArrnRNJaayt ^] nf�ri•Sla..Y TWp u me.e.a>u.A.a[)saIur:Jna L••f1Y•�� �' n.nr. i[f—u,.—. .�)L U�YSLC9"�S if JI �p.mn T ° 3 Lru. lMlr.r^�^ � )fnS..t � I At_mrS°• I sr.wM1 L..wu• r..r�p�.�� I n L D.rw.�Llw C.•r.u.,v • hz b IJ C•w S.r.. DQtECCOR�FP1IBiSC NORRS t ucw acs •oL.n — rn[vcn[u Anvrni raAm[ LR.")'cw[oL•.:�a I AistSTl.T 61 ' or[x.mons>f acu iar v cc.'xnac cp.snaLrno+ w.rzv Qo.u:x iLzvrr m^A^iML�T T,..�.-.,�..4[.-n•1 °FSSGY fwryu l.ru•v 3[£CJ111101CC] 41tinr[ • Ar.rI QY W/ L•.f_.n f.r•rr' Lflr.•r�•1 pya La_'n�.[L~� r-+r•r'•^~M' I Srrrmw Iv30Wr L[�'a4•t CC r_J�r r Leer �I✓:• I. 4i�•�•t Ltv..•I is....rT_rwuu _ 44pr�r frrQ 1 n.•wr.+urr �)r+:rY Lp�l iC�r�Gra .V._�u_wuu Irv_TM__e'/ i LWwfi�al ILiT��I [YJlur_r n ry I Cn^Lr�.0 I LfT_ll a spy n.r 1•n�_• 1�r •� I _ CC1Y WAiEA G:LTr aft LL 3L]CS�1TG 94Vf Or[M..O.Vf � SL1L]niSL�DM M1SC.HA.rAGii �V.i•—+.I:iisrl AD,11L\VTAATIO.V SLTLIL\TL�L Crr .__•` PLANNING DfRECT0R P:avnu'4 CcR:.-.ssica i?cr�g :ait:.e- o Bead of AdjusccJ Jl.man Sc'rr2:Cc�::ca ,�DxfL`rtSTRATPJE PLkN'TL`rG`.TANAGER ASStsI.i.N"I'II '��� �•� �'� ]Adminislntive ]ORCC SE:IfOR PL.LNN Eii $ecrmr7 I Tee=moan Q IPTi SENIOR PLANNER l SL`QOR PLAtiNER CommlmitT Reo ch and P R Current Pisaamg Derelopment Development I I 8 P!°nnm ' Ifome Rcpiir I CIS Planner Coordlnvlor A. COMMITTEE'S pRIMARY RECOMMENDATION: REORGANIZATION STRATEGY The new Office of Development Permits and Inspections is proposed as an independent organization to be staffed by reassigned baseline personnel and functions related to the review and processing of building permits . It would include functions and personnel from the building section of the Code Enforcement Division, and "counter type" planning personnel. It is proposed that this office be located physically within the existing Code Enforcement Division and be under the direction of the City Administrator and an "interim" project manager who would be responsible for coordinating formation of the Office in accordance with Executive and Legislative policy. Furthermore, the method of staffing would be to reallocate existing financial and manpower resources with the expressed objective of reducing fire, building and planning permit staff by at least six (6) current positions immediately. The committee recommends that, at some future date, the city council should consider transforming this Office into a Line Department and at the same time expand its authority over the development approval process functions such as SEPA, pre- development meeting coordination, and current planning and engineering construction plan review responsibilities now held by other departments. This future larger organization could then be called the Department of community Services or Department of Development Services . The name is not as important as the continued integration of functionally similar review personnel and processing activities under one overall management authority. Organizational Characteristics Some of the more important organizational characteristic of this new Office of Development Permits and Inspections are listed below: 1 . Office Head preferably should be Engineer or Architect, with ICBO certification or Building Official status . 2 . Office Head reports directly to City Administrator/Mayor 3 . Office has "interim" departmental. status and is autonomous from Fire Department 8 4 . Office would be formed by resolution or ordinance by council action 5 . Office would be created through reallocation of existing staff and resources from within the Code Enforcement Division and other baseline "zoning counter" planning personnel. These transferred positions are not intended to be replaced by the contributing department because these functions will now be reassigned to the new Office. 6 . Office long term staffing goal would be consistent with the Council Target Issue of developing an Employee Downsizing Plan 7 . The Office will have cross-departmental authority to direct and coordinate the tracking, monitoring and review activities of other departmental permit process personnel in order to achieve higher levels of consistency, efficiency and public service accountability. 8 . The Office would be organized to offer the maximum amount of diverse yet related permit services in one location with the least personnel . Office personnel would be crossed trained to provide basic permit, planning and engineering systems threshold determinations and reviews at one permit station. 9 . Without sacrificing public health and safety, the new Office should be expected to aggressively maximize its revenues and by operating more efficiently can promote economic development e.g. , by facilitating the, review of tenant improvement applications and single family home permits . 10 . The new organization would develop and maintain a list Of private consultants, who would have been "certified" by the building official , who would be contracted to provide plan check and field inspections on construction projects as well as fire systems, on a need basis during heavy workloads and or on projects that are particularly complex or demand immediate expedited review approval . 11 . All organization personnel would be required to maintain the highest level of education in tine building and fire code industry. 9 Operational Description The new Office of Development Permits and Inspections would process the following types of permit applications : 1. Tenant Improvements (T. I . ) 2 . Commercial Remodel 3 . Foundation 4 . New Residential 5. Residential Remodel, Additions and Garages 6 . Rack Storage 7 . Tanks (underground , above ground & propane) 8 . Demolition 9 . House Moves 10 . Mobile Home Set-Ups 11. Signs 12 . Mechanical 13 . Plumbing/sprinklers Major projects would be processed by this new Office, but would rely on "concurrent review" by the Planning and Public Works Departments . The review process would be similar to the existing system, but the new Head of Development Permits and Inspections would establish reasonable review times for and with authority to insure that other departments conduct their reviews within this time frame. Grade and Fill permit applications would be handled entirely by the Public Works department. Hazardous materials would be handled entirely by the Fire department. Building Based on the permit workload from 1991, the new Office of Development Permits and Inspections would consist of: * 3 plans examiners * 3 inspectors * 3 permit specialists The staff of 9 people would be supervised by the Office Head, who would report directly to the city administrator. The permit specialists would be cross-trained to review all applications and check setbacks, parking, tree ordinance, solar, landscape, etc. The objective would be to conduct these types of review at the counter, but if necessary, have these items checked 10 within one day and then processed for normal plan review. They ible for scheduling predevelopment meetings would also be respons artment permit staff efforts to meet timely and coordinate other dep deadlines for a broad range of reviews . The permit specialists would also be trained to answer most general questions and when permits are ready for issuance, they would prepare the actual permit paper work, including cost and have paper work ready for the finance department to accept fees for the Permit. Plans examiners , in addition to their regular in-office plan review functions, would also be cross-trained to conduct field inspections when required by varying workloads . They would also be responsible for review and inspections of sprinkler and fire suppression systems . Plan examiners would have job performance evaluations based on the quality of review and the promptness of their reviews. For example, based on the assumption that all required plans are submitted as complete, it is estimated that it should take no more than 4 straight hours to complete reviews of the permit types listed above. This approach would link job performance with the need to insure prompt delivery of quality public services . Likewise, the inspectors would also be cross-trained to make plan reviews and be prepared to make inspections either in the a.m. or p.m. as requested by permit holders . Code Enforcement The current building section of code enforcement has 2 plans examiners, 3 inspectors , 2 permit specialist, 1 support services specialist, 1 cashier, 1 assistant building official and 1 building official on a full time basis. The fire section of this division also has an assistant fire chief , a fire marshall, and an assistant fire marshall working on permits (assume 50% of the time) . The total is 11 full time employees and 3 at 50% time, for an compiled total of 12 . 5 people. Planning The planning department, in a memo dated may 51 1992 , stated that they have a senior planner, 3 . 5 planners and . 16 interns working on various tasks for a total of 4 . 66 people. They have estimated that 50 % of their time is devoted to permit functions . This means 2 . 66 people are working full time on the permit process. To illustrate the trend in government on resolving permit delays, assistant city administrator Jim Hansen in a memo dated 9/18/91 to Council President Judy Woods stated that the planning department has requested 4 additional full time people to reduce the permit 11 process time by 20% . This approach does not represent a reasonable return in timely reviews , but it clearly would have required a significant cost in added personnel. Public Works It is anticipated that the public works department permit review functions would remain the same, but would require some restructuring of review flows to minimize unnecessary delays. The engineering department would prepare a form listing the type of information required, such as easements, storm drainage fees, etc. in order to begin permit reviews. The applicant would get these forms from the new Office of Development Permits and Inspections and have the engineering department sign off on them prior to a permit application. This form would serve a function similar to water and sewer availability letters now required by King County prior to their review of county projects . This procedure would eliminate the need to send permit applications to engineering with the exception of major projects and Grade and Fill permit applications . The elimination of sending permit applications to planning and engineering (based on 1991 data) would remove approximately 4 weeks from the permit time flow. Summary Based on the previous data and proposed new process, it is estimated that the time to issue a majority of permits would be reduced greatly. Presuming submittal of a correct set of permit plans, the 20 to 54 days it has historically taken during the 1991 time period to review and issue permits , could now take 1 to 3 working days . The total number of people presumed to be involved in permit reviews for both the planning and fire/building departments range from 15 . 6 to 21 . 86 . If we were to assume a minimum of 16 full time people are currently being directly used in the permit process, and the new organization required only 10 people then this would represent a reduction of six positions from the planning and fire/building departments . The new Office is intended to function with essential personnel who would have cross-training in several critical areas. 12 Proposed Organization Chart The proposed organization chart is shown in the next page. It graphically describes the key positions and relationships basic to a baseline operation. These baseline personnel are defined as the most basic levels of staffing necessary to maintain a reasonable level of permit services . It does not include frills, whistles or bells or more specifically, a division of labor approach to staffing responsibilities . For example, a "zoning counter" planner in the new Office would also have the training to take-in and process permit applications during times of heavy workloads or absences in personnel . Also, since this zoning function is "transferred" from the planning department it is not refilled in that department. Other personnel would have the similar cross training to minimize delay gaps in typical processing activities . The baseline organization is intended to operate more efficiently through staff cross-training and systems management techniques at minimal staffing levels . Initial Steps to Implement In order to facilitate the transition from Code Enforcement to the _- Office of Development Permits and Inspections, as much of the existing organization and personnel should remain functionally and physically intact. Yet, some of the more basic steps to take to insure an effective transition are as follows: 1. The mayor and council should proceed immediately to adopt the appropriate resolutions and or ordinance to create this new Office. 2 . The city should immediately hire an "interim" project manager. The permit committee would like to participate in the selection. 13 OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS & INSPECTIONS City > HEAD Technical Admins. Support Planning Fire <------------ Engineer. Permit special . Planner Permit rmit Specialist ( 1) [jpecia list (1) Combine Plans ------ Combine Inspector Exam. (inspector) (plans Exam. ) Combine Plans ------ Combine Inspector Exam. (inspector) (plans Exam. ) Combine Plans ------ =Combine Inspector Exam. (inspector) (plans Exam. ) - cross trained (inspect . plan check-- ASSUMPTIONS BENEFITS Office Head/Engineer/Architect *Increased Revenues Organ.based on submittal hist. *Processing time reduced +50% Office reports to Administrator *Fee collection accelerated Personnel/Functions combined *Staff reductions Office is autonomous from FireDept *Sales/property taxes enhanced Office is formed immediately *Spur economic development No new revenue req' d goals Organ. can be expanded by *Efficient public services combining other like functions . *Improve permit specialist training / education 14 City Ot \,CnL Recommended Organization Chart with New Permit Office 7777777777777777777 CITTZI;NS' EXECUTIVE' CITY COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION Dan Kcllchcr,`f3}cr 7c::y 1Y��is,P�sid Edward Cnow, Dowc-' Jim Hansen,AssL C[ry Adc^.i:_ ch s s_: .4lana 1(cis[•.tsin,Admix.Scn•.�[;-. Tca:cs:: `.-. FINANCE LAW rNFOR.IIATION L' . SERVICES TO\Y�`.cC?R r:Y ROCE3 LUEOVTCH ( RON SD kNc. tea.^c_'Scrlics Dan rY ,t Cocr.sc: .oscs .Cs;cmc. crnccs 3— wo:c r_-:2 ;,;. ,.. . C^=l cc • P::hL'c Oi''ce Buildings ?"buc Desc:zc ?sz�`.r.ag—cr: PUBLIC POLICE WORKS E CF a.lrrr ORD DON WTC{SiRO`i T. sccr Ec R-...x1 DEVELOPMENT FIRE PERMITS & N0P-N _aCB_0 INSPECTIONS i F,Su772`S: TrnuT Trn?ladE, C' _ ' f_•_..,� rnJ 7fl Ulan$ '. — PARKS PL-AI NING �v���'Y, �o D11 HARR'S Park Lind Usc P!aarvng Rc_=ccn Housing L•Ccmmunicy Dc,c'.ccmc^: IS Ar P'- gr- .s Human Scrriccs E=',Cr Ccmr Hucincss Lccascs Sc-ca.' B. ACTION PLAN 16 a 0 z a a a x m w m Z U W O ................... N E H UO 4-' W G W I Z Z H - _ ,. U ❑ ❑ r O ❑ N -- 0 0 41 N m o 0 H y m 41 n Ul of G U J .•..I H N ar U c c C VI 0 > O O H b G 0 G � b C J .1 rn H rl -rl N Q. J W -, C '>O � g > C ] > U r N N U H •• O z x w w w t+ •• o a W p 4 w` w w w — O � 17 APPENDIX Valley Daily News Article in Sunday Edition dated March 15, 1992 City Council The council decided the adminis- - I `tration should conduct a comprehen- leaders plan -sive review of city positions and rec- ommend where similar jobs can be consolidated or transferred from one for near futu lrr e -department to another. By JEAN PARIETTI StYf l/�9 And the consensus _was that ByDail News 3 department heads should be held Y Y -accountable, going as far as being KENT—Transportation, commu- :fired after appropriate warnings, if nication, downtown revitalization, they don't carry out the council's increasing efficiency and improving direction. Kent's financial-.condition are the Employees who deal with the pub- City Council's and mayor's major lic, especially over the telephone, . goals this year. should have some customer service But the overriding,urgent priority training to overcome a perception for the city is meeting the mandates that they are bothered by phone calls of the state's Growth Management from the public, the council said. Act, they decided. In the transportation area, the Meeting several hours Friday and South 277th Street and South 196th all day. Saturday at the West Hill Street corridor projects have over- Fire Station, Kent's elected officials whelming support from the elected hammered out the direction the city officials, as do plans to continue should take on vital issues. The ses- with feasibility studies for heavy rail sion was moderated by consultant mass transit. Lyle Sumeck. Also important to the council is City finances were discussed at studying pedestrian safety issues on length,with council members agree- James Street from Central Avenue ing to'eliminate positions that were east to the city limits at 116th Ave- . created in 1991 but never filled nue Southeast. because of the city's hiring freeze. Making a decision on recommen- Based on economic projections, dations from the Riverbend Golf "there's no way, at this point, those Complex audit also is a high priority positions are 'going to be funded," his year. said Council President Judy Woods. Streamlining the development "They should be taken off the permit process and making a one- books. I[pink we better bite the bul- stop permit center, a move some let now." :council members have been advo- But that doesn't mean there isn't a cating for years, was promoted by need for more employees,especially ,Councilman Paul Mann Saturday. in the police and fire departments, :Mann is a member of an advisory she and other council members said. committee revtewma the rocess. Mayor Dan Kelleher said addi- ; is is not going to be easy,' e tional positions may need to be fro- ;said. •zen even if those jobs are removed In the realm of downtown revital- from the budget. -ization, pursuing construction of the:;• Council members also expressed ;couniy's regional justice center in •the need for.streamlining the staff to -Kent is a high priority. meet the city's budget constraints. The council also approved sec- "We're going to have to do more :ondary priority goals for the year, with less," Councilman Jim White ;including study of the full-time may- said. •or proposal, moving toward annex- ations on East Hill and dealing with housing issues. Fl - y 6 G•' C op O O V U V (IJ ` a U' 'N 3 V O•U O c_ Cz- u m3 a_ = 0 Y'O mOO E u .n a 4 o o c u 3 H "- �- c NSF u-' �•>�°■ -J N Ouu u_ J.= 0 > G CO h N U Fm 9 d 0 C-n Y O m u 0 u u p ® o 0 7 N > m c N u 1 C U- � U� V pU O a O � 3 Q N_ _ a.V V V =L` - >M J ` O _m= 0 J 2 c a a H 0� U q OU a u Q n - W _ j n C - V U G=� •� � 1 N_ L O �? . V U U Q O V n M U - - LLJ h O �O C O .3 x = 3'2 '2- < N -� o 3 ` u }, 4 02 Y<& 3= 2 _ /�\ N u n_7E n G 152 N 7 U C U C L C ^ Y N +J O O O T^ u O O - Y y E ` G O UN Y Ta� 3 =�a 7 uc or, � a._.E M W q O 3 sibly changing regula:i,)ns - : mentioned we were submitting some changes to the One topic that has been the Achilles council on theSAO-there have been a lot of heel of this administration in relationship to unnecessary delays because ofthewaythat real estate development is the issue of per- ordinance has stopped things." mit application processing at BALD. I the "We've got to do a better job of making July 1991 Property Newsline, a letter was the system predictable in getting the work Article In printed which was authored by Lois processed.We've got to get mid-level,lower °property Management Schwennison, director of Parks and Plan- management people trained and used to Newsline ning,under whose jurisdiction BALD falls. the idea that we've got to get permits out. 9�1991 The letter outlined the primary objectives The delays we cause people have a cost,in planned for BALD and mentioned thatsome particularly with single family housing. "tough decisions" would be made to ac- We're asking"Do we have affordablehous- commodate these objectives. What would ing?" We, the government, are trying to these"tough decisions" be? promote affordable housing but we create "This is the second major effort that I .additional cost because of the delay_in_time_ have had during my time as county execu- We are considering t e notion of adopting tive in reforming BALD. The first time time limits which would require that we occurred in 1986-87 when we consolidated issue permits and if we don't meet those a number of functions. I think things were time limits the permits would be granted.I better after that reorganization. Clearly, believe that it's our obliga tion thatwhenwe growth has been dramatic in the last four have the resources and we've done all our years.Thisyear and last,permit activity has studies,thatwe ought to make thatcommit- been falling off. The tough decisions are ment." going to be looking at the operations of _ - 7 41, e' R w, � t ar;«s ^'r ,'yam arb �L a� NNW ire: Mo R Letter V� , jobs�ystern� r .r. ' pre41J., arbl in �ettrng, ttte ��� 5�� c wor. ��easerl. 1JIle ue got , . to 9e m -.I;eu.el , lo5we m a na 7 ent- pe:o Ie strained x l a n d uu se Xc� h'e cd;ea. .t at ` n - we um ,�. o ge.tt ;permits � , SkKr _ o u t "Single Page Excerpt" - i t7 01770NS FCp CONS;D CV.+I.LiiJlli�i$ r•.�i Kent S n0115 i ng 1 S more a f'i Grda]12 1= al t le cV a+i for i11 nG �OUfi y. 'li` l S 1 S t h cmecwner as 7:'el I as for 'Che re::-er. [CcStd on recent sales Of true Gr :�e =�- � t :es e F,edl a--?ri c ed hCii:se n t,`:e :.en t area Sel IS fGr singe- family he apprcxiratery S7b,0v0, about 511 ,OOJ less has t�,e ig Du sty ava e. Ci: hpp CXli�:dtely SO percent Of Ke;it hOUSc^iiOid`� Can affGr'd t0 pUrCnaSe the u:edi air-priced Kent ho-e ; to i s co�par2s 'r'i Lr? ess :: n v`re-third OT COUn ty �J. households ':{h0 are able to a ord the :;edian-price`u iiC^e i inu CGUiity 'I Rents , t00, are SCmeWhdt urore afiordabie 111 i�2it, wl �:� Sllgntiy less montniy pare:ts and higher vacancy rates than County-wide a,'eraces. AIR ,,i i s pi Cture of relative o f fGrdavl i t ty I t Ken- veils an 1T;pOrtdn Cna,^iG2 ' n the production or housing. Cver the past years, an financinc, and UUilder DrOflt/OverhEad have iriCrEased, as a ,,ErcEni.ac2 Oi overal 'I Unit COSt While materi al S and labor Gave decreased. 4rcordl rig t0 1;dD, to 1 S s 1 T-t 1 n COmDoneint Cost Structure Of h0Usinci pr dU -Ctln is largely attributable tO I governmental p011Cy and procedures. U StUdi2s, and particularl_v Sore "' US1ng, cf the demonstration projects of the - Joint 7Enture fGr Affordabie n L have shown that land and profit/overhead component costs are neavi y InTiuEiICed by sicw periiilt prccesses, dev2io-merit fees , and in If! exible , OUt- dated bU �ding, Zoning, and Iand develOpi�rent regUiati0F�S, crflC 2riC125 'n`nlCn 3 -- - can be achieved in local development ordi n .nces and through strEainlining permit procedures may ulti�n,ately translate it to : :ore arforeacle nousina. Sore of the d2monstr3t;on pro ects have shown cost savir,as reaching Several thoUSands of dollars per unit as a reSUlt of cuCh efficiencies. This stud,/ has taken an in-depth look at iKeri t' S admi ni S tr a t i ve OrOcedures and develop-r,ent regulations wrilCh influence housing cons tl"UCtIOn, it has attempted to articuIate the ways in which these regulations affect the prod°uc- xz On GT cffGrddb i e OUs' :'lg, SC+ire Of the 5 tUdy ' 5 f i ndl r1gS suggest the flee'd for exploring alternative procedur'2s and standards which achieve tie same abjec- v tive as ;:resent codes but, in a less cJStly or CJTbersome way. 1991 INCOME FROM PERMITS AND OTHER RELATED REVENUE VALUE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 108,386,499 INITIAL ANNUAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 IMPACT IMPACT 291,560 291,560 291,560 PROPERTY TAX SALES TAX 1,013,414 359,944 1,373,357 359,944 UTILITY TAX 110,248 110,248 110,248 BUILDING PERMITS 316,382 316,382 PLAN CHECK FEES 212,577 212,577 WATER REVENUE 190,969 190,969 190,969 SEWER REVENUE 62,131 62,131 62,131 DRAINAGE REVENUE 56,511 56,511 56,511 -------- ----------- ----------- TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION REVENUE 1,542,373 7-79,802 21322,174 779.a02 TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET 65,011,774 65,011,774 3.57% 1.20-- PERCENT OF BUDGET - 1991 STATISTICS ASSESSED VALUATICN 3,508,127,473 NEW CONSTRUCTION 108,386,499 PROPERTY TAX RATE 2.69 / $1,000 0.00269 SALES TAX RATE $0.011 X 85% 0.00935 PROPERTY TAX - 9,775,466 SALES TAX 11,650,235 UTILITY TAX 3,568,363 WATER REVENUE 6,181,050 SEWER REVENUE (NET OF METRO PAYMENT) 2,010,986 DRAINAGE REVENUE (NET OF CITY'S BILL) 1,829,073 W _l Ul F' 0'� lD F� m z Crl rn a O .� a •a rn ~o r rn C: O O Ul Cn r• rr b o n ro a m �• a rrr (D o �• m G v o n o LQ n o 5 s ro � r- a �'o Y. �' � r• H o � � � cn tS O to X can n v fn rr � � m m ;v r• � rD � � a H N. �. ci N N n (n rj ri N ~ G) 7 G CD N N r N P v w 0 rr W I \ �l W I •P i I � N 0� O .� ,_, I N I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C7 N• a I I I I I 1 1 1 N �, C I N E-' F-' I N I • I I Ul W k I Ul I I N N A J y ^^ 4M1 +/ N rt [rj ►d H I I O lb 10 Ul O I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ILQ I I I I I I I I I I i N N I I I I I J W H I J J N I J I I lfl to C W F N J N F•' F-� N O I •p Ul Ul Ul Ir A Ul I 07 .A Li co J a G I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1LQ C� I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I I I I I W y •J N I I Li N F' I(.n Ul __7 N 0 N N ED N C' r- 1 Ul Fi I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I O I i I I I I I I I I I I d I I I I I I I I I I I I pl H I r I I F•' i I I Ul I I Ut J •P I I O Ip H fi Pl w F F C+ F N H H N O •P w lT Ul -.l 0 Ul m A J O W 10 •P f✓ 01 I '� I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I N �•� i 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 C I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I r• I I I i I I I I I I I I t7 fD I I I I I I I I I I I I w E •J N N w r w a Ul (D O �l Oi Ul Ul Ul •P N C� co .0. UI L1 Nz � D C � rn � cn m z 73 -� --1 i D m O 0 tTc To _ m CD m (n a PGA too N Rl N ""n l�l Da`tS O a v °v 0 -� N -r- C lJ _ -i O D r z CD Z n n � -i m m ;tiiPLlGAT1ot.� t�TAkc n (2) HRS H PL�1J cNE�k< (3) �S r• H �2MtT Pf�cGr✓�t tiXr i � O A � N r m m W � � Z pn J• ITr =� Ski P Et2�1 l�rJ ASA&jJ Z "Co Ptom,t-4 F-4 e R Z NrraG .Dc-TT a -I --� 'R� R B.l I ELL)CD m _ m .--I m j o r g-.6.Q- RLMJ1ew c3 �4rzs) m � F � Cal D -C N � a W n LLJ z WCC o W rh Sz+N cc� � �H� c�ry� u- .. cyotl�t'1d�'d ° p �- a_ C� U G h Z � Q z a Q H z W III. Department Head Report on the Permit Process F{ � CcfO APR 19 1993 MEMORANDUM APRIL 16, 1993 OFFICE OF T'HE iviAYOP TO: COUNCIL PRESIDENT JUDY WOODS COUNCILMEMBERS JIM WHITE, JON JOHNSON, LEONA ORR, PAUL MANN, CHRISTI HOUSER AND JIM BENNETT FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF a� '� SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM RETREAT -------------------------------------------------------------------- It was my understanding that Council wished to have background material from all the previous permit process proposals. The prime summary documents related to the Department Head Proposal are attached. It is clear that Council intends for the process to be under one area. We are in hopes that we will be given consideration in that concept. In any case we will be positive and supportive of your direction. There were a couple of pieces of information I would like to share with you that I believe would be beneficial regardless of which direction you select. I. Comparison - Number And Valuation Of Permits For The 1st Quarters Of 1991, 1992 And 1993 1st Qtr 93 1 st Otr 92 1st Qtr 91 396 permits 344 permits 330 permits $17,014,367 $13,182,167 S 9,466,396 For the first quarter of 1993 the number of permits represent a 15% increase over 1992 and a 20% increase over 1991. The valuation of permits in the first quarter of 1993 represents a 29% increase over 1992 and a 80% increase over 1991. While this does not represent the record setting pace we once saw it does reflect a positive attitude and willingness to invest in our community. This would be worthwhile to consider versus recent perceptions that people were looking to leave our community. II. I also feel compelled to address recent concerns expressed to Council that residential and tenant improvement permits have been taking 51 days to get out. I assume that the Advisory Committee found a specific case during their research that took 51 days. Without knowing which one it was, it is difficult to determine what actually caused the delay, whether it was our process or related to the applicants action. The real key is that when that research was done, there was not a tracking system in place. Last year we implemented a tracking system that gives a more comprehensive and accurate picture; of processing time and what is impacted by city staff versus by the applicant. During June and July of 1992, we were averaging 20.5 days for permit issuance, an average of 14.5 days used by city staff and an average of 5.9 days needed by the applicant to correct errors and omissions. The other parameters are listed on the attached sheet, this information was also included in the Department Heads Proposal. At that time, staffing levels were higher than they are currently. My intent is only to clarify to you that the example given may have been an isolated one. Regardless of the direction you chose, I felt this information might be valuable to you. Under whatever organization you choose to place the Permit Center, it will be very important to consider the impacts on the remaining functions in a given department. These other functions should be evaluated against the budget and staff resources to insure that they can still be accomplished. cc: Assistant Chief Berg Jim Harris, Planning Director Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Dan Kelleher, Mayor lm HUTCHINSON BOB / KENT70/FR - HPDesk print . , r �� k '. ✓ o� sy ----------------------- Subject: REPORT ON PERMIT PROCESS Crr `,)r: Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR Dated: OV13/92 at 1543 . REPORT ON ACTUAL CURRENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMELINES TO: Ed Chow, City Administrator FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Chair, Permit Process Review Committee DATE : August 13 , 1992 CC: Norm Angelo, Fire Chief; Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works ; Jim Harris, Planning Director Prior to January 111992 , city records showing the length of time from filing an application for a building permit to permit issuance showed only that; no records were consistently kept which would reveal how much time was used by ity staff to review and process applications and how much time was consumed Dy applicants in revising and correcting plans which violated codes or were incomplete. ffective the first of this year, tracking sheets were attached to permit applications upon receipt, information showing processing time and applicant 3elays was entered as the applications were routed and reviewed, and the sheets iere removed and kept for analysis as the permits were issued. �s the earliest tracking sheets were only for those applications which were not relayed significantly, early analysis could not accurately reflect delays or :how their causes . Therefore, this report addresses permits issued in June and -u' which show a truly representative picture of the process, with both recent lnc. .alder applications . 'his shows , of course, only a portion of the pe iiit process, as it does not ,'tempt to study permits or other processes handled solely by Planning or Public .orks Departments, such as SEPA, Conditional Use Permits , Side Sewer Permits , >r any permits issued over the counter without review. This study further :xcludes applications for large projects , which are reviewed concurrently by .11 Departments . -uring this period, 139 permits were issued, pursuant to applications tracked hrough the review process . The data gained from the tracking sheets revealed he following: 1 . The average time from application to permit issuance was 20 . 5 days . 2 . The average plan review completion date projected was 13 . 4 days from date of application. 3 . The average time used by city staff for review and processing Was 14 . 5 days . 4 . The average time used by applicants to correct errors and omissiOns was 5 . 9 days . z. study not only documents precisely plan review processing times, which as not been possible before, but clearly reveals delays caused by applicants =rors and omissions for the first time. - CITY OF 1 V 1 �� _ CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 �r MEMORANDUM October 1 , 1992 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KE LEHER ' / FROM: GE JI HARRIS , DON WECKSTROM SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT HEADS PROPOSED PERMIT CENTER In response to your request that the Fire/Building, Planning and Public Works departments review the report produced by the Mayor ' s Advisory- Committee on the Permit Process, staff, working with the three department heads , have formed a consensus of what would be a workable permit center. We feel our conclusions , though different from those of the Committee, will accomplish most of what the Committee proposes , i. e. , a more predictable and faster turn-around time for a certain .class of permits. We also feel that our proposal will not be disruptive of the current organizational framework within which the permit process functions , thus leading to an easy. changeover to a faster time frame for issuing permits for this Special class of permit applications . We thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review Of this very important part of Kent ' s municipal operations. A_A/JH/DW/mp: c:permit.mem cc: City Council Members 1 1� 220 4th AVE. SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-33901 FAX x 859-3334 PERIVUT CE-IN I li�k Plan and Organizati )I i Introduction The Kent City Council identified revisions to the permit process as one of their top priority target issues for 1992-93. Prior to the City CoLncil's listing of priorities, Mayor Kelleher formed a task force to make recommendations on the permit process. In May 1992, the task force issued it. report. The Committee's report focuses exclusively on the permit process for minor development such as tenant improvements, singlE: family dwellings, garages, grade and fill, signs, and the like. The report makes several recommendations on how to reduce the time of review of such permits. These recommendations touch on staffing levels, organizational structure, and accountability. The Department heads of Fire/Building, Planning, and Public Works have been asked by Mayor Kelleher to respond to the Committee's report. The Department directors have assumed this task with diligence and a positive sense of responsibility. This plan of action on the part of Department heads is offered in a spirit of cooperation and constructive change. Goals As recommended by Department heads, the revised permit process plan can be expected to accomplish the following: Complete the-.implementation of the City Council target issue calling for revision of the permit process Decrease plan review processing times for certain building permit categories to an average of 10 working days, assuming: • Workloads at or near current levels • Permit Center staffing at June 1992 level • Consistent level of plan review 9 ^ Maintain stability of work force and continuity of process. (No new positions are created and no new personnel costs are incurred. Existing staff are utilized.) All permit applications will continue to be processed as expeditiously as possible., but minor development permits in the Permit Center (including those in the downtown area) will take precedence in order to meet above goals. Recommended Permit Process Plan 1 . Create a Permit Center which will process minor development permit applications internally and will serve as initial contact and in-take point for major development permits. The Permit Center will have the following characteristics: ■ Location - current Code Enforcement area in Centennial Building ■ Staffing - existing Building staff, Code Enforcement staff, and assigned Planning Department planner ■ Directed by the Building Official ■ To remain within the Code Enforcement Division. of the Fire Department 2. Scope of the Permit Center activities: ■ Accept, review, and issue permits for minor development: • Commercial tenant improvements, alterations and remodeling • Foundation only permits • New single family residential, including garages • Residential remodeling, additions, alterations and repair • Storage rack systems • Tanks • Demolition • Mobile home set-up, modular offices and classrooms • Signs • Mechanical systems • Plumbing systems • Sprinkler systems ■ Accept and process other permit applications for new projects and related actions to other departments for review and/or appropriate actions. 9 - 3. Resources/Operations ■ Public Works Department to provide: •Basic criteria for minor development permit approvals Pre-application approval sign-off for water and sewer availability, non-interference with utility easements, and related requirements 2 Lo Z V) J Z Q O^ dU d w� <LJ 0 L C ZO N 0 0 CL- _ L_ J J3 <Z U >W>� U� J LJUU JW m �WJ IL V) C U D <W = w_ � I W v �wo �w C`,F- 0- F- •- N Z N_ O U) 0 - F- J L W ULLJ F >Z �L'i W Z Z 0 JL'i C O J Z W z U 0 d 0 O.. V7 W< Vl Q ^ W h W 0 j C^ _C - U -� J C Z W T Z Ll 0 of .c aJ z� z r� u- in LJ < W z ry a� 0 0- 0- < J W < �) - V) 2 W O LJ Z Z- < Z0 Z :20 JC EnLJ N W LLJ !,, O L C Q F 00 N S U 0 0 �W'. - C'J O J N < W U u < C Z W O s J I C C OL'iU 9 Z J 4 Z U U _O O 0 O U U U O 0 O O 0 `F- C Z Z_ Z U7 Z(n J :- W aC 0 Z Z v Q W Z J U 0 W Q N D C = _G 0� -� O J 0 0 < 0 Z L7 U ' C W C Z `W W G C J 3'� J O W O Z F I-p V) Z (1j C W iW W F-• , U �• W0� U W n C U 0 "�`� N F-0 0U Q < Z= <Q r cl — ¢ 0 V) g O 6") ^ V) :J U 0 N z cW z U W v0 I I I I I I i ZQ O J � U C I— N h r- N W 0 W L_ F-- Z W W ZO 0 F O C U U OW C o z � O Z C.) W < W Z 5 cCL LLIz z � 0 n 0 U 0 Z Z W ZQ F-, u J U W W> d J v J o c N o (n C U < - Q ■ Planning Department to provide assigned planner ■ Fire Department to provide support staff and existing Building staff ■ All Departments to provide additional resources as required Contingencies The success of the Permit Center reorganization and its performance will be affected by several factors: 1 . The level of service indicated in the plan (i.e., average review time of 10 working days) pertains to actual permit processing time by the City. Completed plans which do not require significant revisions should be reviewed and approved within the 10-day time period. Stricter in-take procedures should help to keep processing timeframes reasonable. However, incomplete or inaccurate applications will require revisions and, hence, slow the process. A recently installed tracking system will monitor City review time versus delay caused by incomplete or inaccurate plans. 2. While the Permit Center staff will serve as a central contact and in-take point for major project applications, these will continue to be reviewed concurrently by the three Departments in order to utilize the depth of expertise available there. In addition, single department permits will continue to be issued by those individual departments responsible for them. 3. The categories of permits to be handled internally by the Permit Center comprise about 90% of building permits issued. Should other regulations be applicable to minor development permits, such as SEPA or hazardous waste requirements, such permits will need to be routed to the appropriate Department for processing. 4. The basic purpose of plan review and issuance of permits is to benefit the public by regulating development, construction, and land use by requiring that it meet minimum standards adopted by the community. While the minimum quality of such development is an essential component of the economic development of the community, it is often mistaken as an obstacle to economic development. Clearer understanding of the purpose of the permit process needs to be communicated. 3 Accountability By effectively managing the permit process and its personnel, the Departments can optimize the delivery of service in the Permit Center. Nevertheless, an accountability element should be built into the establishment of the Permit Center to ensure positive results from the planned changes. The attached chart graphically depicts this accountability structure. To ensure accountability, the Department heads propose implementation of the plan as follows: ■ Approval of Mayor and Council ■ Permit Center operations begin first month following approval ■ A trial period of six (6) months is completed. At the conclusion of the trial period, a report detailing results is prepared and presented to Mayor and Council ■ Opportunities for further improvements continue to be sought in all permit processes Rev. 9-29-92 a: permits.2 4 W N u u Z LJ u z p �� v� � vi J �_ v Z 0 v W U '- ¢ C O O C Z Cl) U Z U O - U O p cf) U-. O �- 1 N 3- F- � � w _! O o p C 0 U n U 0 cn Q c o o p o c c� c. C _ L Z J u O o ¢ z O z c z C) u z Q; Appendices 1. Comparison of Differences in Major Recommendations : Morford Committee Report and Department Head Plan 2 . Report on Actual Permit Processing Timelines (8-13-92) COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS MORFORD COMMITTEE PLAN DEPARTMENT HEAD PLAN %%%%XXXX�C%XX%XXX%XXXXXXXXX%XXXXXX%XXXXX%XXXXXXXXX%XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXA'XXXX%X%�C%% 1 . Implement Council target Issue 1 .Revise a portion of the permit process calling for "revision of permit further in order to complete the process"-Delivery of City Services : implementation of this Council Effectiveness and Efficiency, by Target Issue, by administrative Council Resolution. action of Department Heads . 2. Pursue a major reorganization of 2. Effect a minor reorganization by the permit process by combining combining existing Building Unit basic multi -departmental building staff, Code Enforcement support staff permit functions and personnel into and one assigned Planner (who would an independent office of develop- still be in the Planning Dept. ) into ment permits and inspections, by a Permit Center, under the direction Mayoral and Council action. of the Building Official , reporting to the Code Enforcement Division Assistant Fire Chief. 3. Adopt, by Council Resolution, a 3 . Recognize the mandated role of the budgetary policy stating that the permit process in regulating permit review process is an integral development, construction, and fiscal component of the budget land use for the public benefit. process, it is sound fiscal policy to This role may sometimes come in reorganize it to maximize fee revenues conflict with a role as economic and, more importantly, to enhance development facilitator. economic development opportunities by Maximize fee revenues by establishing facilitating the start up of new ' competitive permit and plan review businesses which generate significant fees, and by vigorously pursuing municipal revenues through property the collection or civil penalty fines valuations and sales receipts . for code violations , while enhancing the efficiency of plan review functions . 4. Transfer building and non- Fire 4. Transfer most plan review functions Marshal Code Enforcement functions for "basic" building permit and personnel. from the Fire Dept. application from Public Works to the to a new Office of Development & Permit Center in the Code Enforcement Inspections , reporting to Division through the use of pre- Administration through an "interim" application approvals and application project manager, who would have intake checklists while conducting authority to direct the plan review Planning Department plan review with a activities of staff in other Depts. . planner assigned to the Permit Center The "basic" plan review functions of as their primary job responsibility. all Depts. would be done internally These "basic" plan review functions by staff in this new "Office" . would thus be done internally by staff in the Permit Center under th- direction of the Building Official . Major projects, subdivisions , SEPA reviews and similar actions would �'�•� �''.)� l � �� �a�� ./� ':Y V� � 'fry HUTCHINSON, BOB / KENT70/FR - HPDesk print . -------------------- Subject: REPORT ON PERMIT PROCESS Cr or: Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR Dated: 08/13/92 at 1543 . REPORT ON ACTUAL CURRENT PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMELINES TO: Ed Chow, City Administrator FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Chair, Permit Process Review Committee DATE: August 13 , 1992 CC: Norm Angelo, Fire Chief; Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works ; Jim Harris, Planning Director Prior to January 1, 1992 , city records showing the length of time from filing an application for a building permit to permit issuance showed only that; no records were consistently kept which would reveal how much time was used by ity staff to review and process applications and how much time was consumed Dy applicants in revising and correcting plans which violated codes or were incomplete. ffective the first of this year, tracking sheets were attached to permit applications upon receipt, information showing processing time and applicant ielays was entered as the applications were routed and reviewed, and the sheets iere removed and kept for analysis as the permits were issued. �s the earliest tracking sheets were only for those applications which were not lelayed significantly, early analysis could not accurately reflect delays or ;how their causes . Therefore, this report addresses permits issued in June and u which show a truly representative picture of the process, with both recent ;na older applications . 'his shows, of course, only a portion of the permit process , as it does not attempt to study permits or other processes handled solely by Planning or Public forks Departments, such as SEPA, Conditional Use Permits, Side Sewer Permits , r any permits issued over the counter without review. This study further xcludes applications for large projects, which are reviewed concurrently by .11 Departments . wring this period, 139 permits were issued, pursuant to applications tracked hrough the review process . The data gained from the tracking sheets revealed he following: 1 . The average time from application to permit issuance was 20 . 3 days . 2 . The average plan review completion date projected was 13 . 4 days from date of application. 3 . The average time used by city staff for review and processing was 14 . 5 days . 4 . The average time used by applicants to correct errors and omissions was 5 . 9 days . lip study not only documents precisely plan review processing times, which as not been possible before, but clearly reveals delays caused by applicants -rors and omissions for the first time . CITY OF CITY, OF_KENT_ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 359-3390 MEMORANDUM December 29 , 1992 MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF DON WICKSTROM, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PERMIT CENTER PLAN AND ORGANIZATION Enclosed herewith you will find further clarification of the Department heads ' plan for a proposed Permit Center. This information is offered in. response to Ted Knapp ' s letter of November 17 , 1992 , which is attached for your reference. We will be in attendance at your January 5th meeting to further explain this proposal and address any questions you may have. FS/JH/NA/DW/mp: c:permitcn. 105 Attachments REPORT ON THE PERMIT PROCESS PLAN January 5, 1993 GOALS: As specified in our plan, the major goal is to reduce plan review completion time to an average of 10 working days for the types of permit applications listed. This is contingent upon two variables, which are June 1992 staffing or pre-layoff levels and workload levels. Deviation from these levels can be expected to directly affect the goal. Thus, actual plan review completion dates may be more or less than 10 working days, depending on staffing provided and workload demand. The workload demand for the permit categories addressed in the report consists of six permit applications per workday. PROCESS: This plan review completion date should be clearly understood. It means that the requested permit will be issued within a day of plan review completion when the review shows compliance with pertinent Codes. If corrections are needed, they.will be identified in writing within the same time frame. If, however, the corrections are of a minor nature, such as can be red-lined on the plans, the permit will be issued stipulating conformance with the approved, red-lined plans. In summary, plan review will result in either a permit or a correction letter being issued. TRACKING: As each permit application requiring plan review is received, a tracking sheet will be attached and be maintained by each person involved in the review. When the plan review is completed, the tracking sheet will be detached and retained for periodic review by the Building Official. These tracking sheets will comprise a record'of how long the plan review process takes and the reasons for any delays and will form the basis for reports which document the achievement (or non-achievement) of our goal. CUSTOMER SERVICE: While it is our intention to minimize customer complaints and maximize service levels, it is inevitable that factors such as less than adequate staff levels, severely reduced training budgets and simply the critical nature of our work will tend to limit progress in this direction. Within these limits, our focus in this area of concern will be to continue to strive for improvement. Those customer service complaints which cannot be readily resolved by staff involved should be taken to the Building Official for resolution. If outside the scope of the Building Official's control, they will then be taken to the Permit Process Review Committee and if resolution still cannot be achieved, the complaint will then be forwarded to the three department heads. SPAN OF CONTROL: The span of control within the new permit process will be considerably broadened for the Building Official while retaining continuity, staff reporting relationships and lines of authority for responsibilities to be met by other City officials charged with them. Required pre-application approvals by the Public Works Department will provide an efficient way for concerns for which that department is responsible to be addressed by Public Works staff, while simplifying the permit process. The Planning Director will continue to address concerns for which he is by law responsible, while placing designated staff under the Building Official's direction so that the process will be smoothly coordinated. Other staff directly involved in the permit process for these permit types will report to the Building Official so that control of the process is consolidated. FLOW CHART: A flow chart illustrating the operation of the process is attached for your reference. IMPLEMENTATION: Our plan, as presented to the Mayor October 1, 1992, contains an implementation proposal. This proposes commencement the first month following approval of the Mayor and City Council. The plan also necessarily contains an integral connection between the 10 working day plan review completion goal and June 1992 staffing levels. As department heads and staff are responsible for numerous other significant activities and programs in addition to this area of the permit process, resources must be utilized to cover all areas of responsibility. Approval of this plan by the Mayor and Council would provide direction in identifying these permit applications as a high priority and in assigning staff resources which will then be unavailable for other work. To date, adequate staffing to handle all responsibilities quickly has not been available and priority direction has not been given. A start-up date for this plan will require adequate staffing to do the job, either by providing additional staff so that all functions can be adequately done, or by taking staff from other tasks to accomplish this one. It is our intention to begin experimental implementation of some portions of the plan immediately in anticipation of approval and direction to proceed. This is expected to provide some gains in efficiency while allowing us to work out any unforseen glitches in the plan. While reaching the plan's goal is not likely without the staff needed, this will provide preparation for full implementation and goal attainment when staff can be made available. ----- , I � � D p G I 0 0 I I ----- ---- I o D mm v 7 n �yj N s 0 O n -*+ D 6 N I O �1 �. O o (C) C. C: i a: I m Q I ,On. 7 p O y, CD I D am I N < ED 7 m ET Q (Q N m Q. o j I I tD I O (� p v * I Z � m 3 m iQ �i N c/� m C m n m m m off, < (D � 0 m � � 3_ m � Q0 �. a " � n o o� Z m ; 0 d m o m 0 � .m m � ,� t o m ° m m 0 ca -o OI N � n -- a 3 o � m a m � I I � o a 1 % 1 ZJ 0 .« _ W I Z CO 0 O p Q m ZJ D W = O O N 3 7 0) N {• 7 N X fD a Q / tp I n C V/ 3 h N cNn r ° c co co CD (D 7 C) o m m November 17, 1992 KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE To : Leona Orr, Planning Committee Chair Norm Angelo, Fire Chief From: Ted Knapp, Land Use & Regulation Committee Chair Re : PERMIT PROCESS REORGANIZATION As the chamber and city department heads agreed at last Thursday' s meeting, the following issues must be resolved to ensure a successful outcome for the proposed changes in the city' s permit process : 1 . Rating/tracking system including : turnaround time, customer complaints/service and training . Note : if six-month trial period does not produce improved performance, the city will look at reorganization to accomplish the goals . 2 . Span of control . 3 . Flow chart of process, and 4 . P_ beginning point from the city . As both consumers of the product; and when called upon, advisors to the process, the chamber is happy to collaborate with the city on this critical issue . In our advisory role, we will look to Chief Angelo and Directors Harris and Wickstrom, for a report specifying their implementation plan for the organizational change . I have no doubt that when the plan, including items 1-4 above, is completed and the process begun, we will see a greatly improved system. 524 WEST MEEKER, SUITE 1 - P.O. BOX 126 KENT, WASHINGTON 98035 (206) 854-1770 FAX (206) 854-8567 cmr oF Tizead CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM February 9, 1993 MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECT NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF e DON WICKSTROM, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOIU SUBJECT: PERMIT CENTER PLAN Enclosed please find further clarification you requested on how the Department heads' Permit Center plan will address concerns raised at the January 19, 1993 meeting. We will attend the February 16, 1993 meeting to provide further explanation or to answer any questions you may have. REPORT ON THE PERMIT PROCESS PLAN February 91 1993 On January 19 , 1993 , the Planning Committee requested clarification on how the Department heads ' Permit Center plan will appropriately address the concerns of public safety; customer service; time periods for plan review; and consistency and predictability. This communication is in response to that directive and is intended to supplement previous Department heads ' reports . CUSTOMER SERVICE: A strong focus will be kept on not only maintaining adequate levels of customer service, but on taking steps to strengthen and improve the customer service provided. Some of the specific actions planned include: 1. Seeking the assistance of the Human Resources Department to provide training for staff. Such training should include segments addressing time management, professional interactions and conflict resolution. 2 . Enhancing communications with customers . Specific steps planned include: * With budgetary approval, planning and conducting permit process informational workshops. These will be outside normal working hours so as to not impact permit process productivity and will be open to developers, contractors , architects , engineers and property owners. The purpose will be to promote smoother interactions through mutual understanding of the needs and responsibilities of the parties involved. Intensifying internal technical training of staff, through periodic training meetings of small groups and daily interaction with supervisors . This will attempt to compensate for reduced training budgets, fewer staff and greater productivity challenges . Refinement of written information on minimum requirements for permit applications and process. This will act to supplement the informational workshops and provide immediately available data for customers . Request State assistance in providing training opportunities for the development community in State code provisions , such as Energy Code, Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code and State Building Code Amendments addressing accessibility for the disabled. * Maintaining an open-door policy of accessibility for Department heads and managers for information exchange and problem resolution. TIMELINES: The plan states a goal of completing plan review of permit applications in the categories listed in an average of 10 working days from receipt of permit application, contingent on workloads and staff levels being consistent with those of June, 1992 . Since then, workloads have remained relatively consistent, while staffing levels have significantly declined. Four positions that directly impact the permit process in the Planning Department and the Code Enforcement Division have been vacated since June and remain unfilled. With approval of the plan providing direction to give priority to these categories of applications, we estimate that plan review completion times will average 15 working days, with the reduced staff levels of January 1993 . This will allow other mandated functions to be maintained, though reduced levels of service in those functions are probable. Any increase in workload levels or attrition of staff below January levels will limit service delivery capabilities and lengthen plan review completion timelines. CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY: In order to enhance the consistency and predictability of interactions in the permit process, efforts will be concentrated on: 1 . Further refinement and consistent utilization of pre- application approvals to address Public Works concerns . 2 . Greater standardization of plan review processes and procedures . Standard checklists are being reviewed and interpretations of ambiguous State code requirements being sought, an effort that will continue. This information will . be shared with project designers and others through project-related information exchanges, such as pre-development meetiffgs; and through informational workshops previously discussed. 3 . Balancing workloads to improve accuracy and predictability in meeting plan review completion dates projected and issued to applicants. This can be expected to require diversion of staff from other tasks to meet the goals of the plan. 4 . Resolving problems and/or conflicts resulting from inconsistencies . The Building Official will serve as a permit coordinator and ombudsman in handling such problems in the permit process , and will coordinate staff tracking of application status and progress in the system from application to permit issuance. Any problems which require solutions or which indicate a need for future prevention crossing departmental lines will be brought by the Building official to the mid- management Permit Process Review Committee or to the Department heads for resolution. PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE: The initial purpose of the earliest codes was the protection of the public through the regulation of building construction and development. This remains a central focus today. The enactment of these regulatory codes through a permitting system was born of a recognized need to protect the publics ' health, safety and general welfare. The codes and the permit process, therefore, provide a check to balance the public need for safety with the private sector ' s objective of efficient production. Roles and responsibilities have been expanded over the course of time to address public welfare in addition to basic safety. Examples of this include adoption by the City Council of the zoning code and regulations governing the subdivision o land, an , ad adoption by the State of codes regulating energy consumption, ventilation and indoor air quality and egulations is a sb lity for the the disabled. The adoption of these elected representatives of the public that both basic safety and general welfare of the public are to be protected through the enforcement of these codes . Achievement of these mandates of providing safety and protecting the public welfare can only be reached and maintained through designated responsibility with accountability. The Department head' s plan retains this accountability by keeping public officials responsible for the permit process . Nevertheless , within the bounds of the codes, the Department heads - feel that code administration must be done with an attitude of flexibility. our approach will be to promote the public safety and interest while also assisting the private sector to reach their objectives . REPORT ON PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMELINES 1992 As noted in previous reports, records are being kept of permit application review and processing times and delays for certain categories of building permit applications. Effective January 2 , 1992 , tracking sheets were attached to permit applications upon receipt; information showing processing/review time and applicant delays was entered as the applications were routed and reviewed; and the sheets were removed and kept for analysis as the permits were issued. As the earliest tracking sheets were only for those applications which were not delayed significantly, early analysis could not accurately reflect delays or show their causes. Therefore, this report addresses permits issued in the last half of 1992 , which show a truly representative picture of the process, with both recent and older applications. The shows, of course, only a portion of the permit process as it does not attempt to study permits or other processes handled solely by the Planning or Public Works Departments, such as SEPA, Conditional Use Permits, Side Sewer Permits, or any permits issued over the counter without review. This study further excludes applications for large projects, which were reviewed concurrently by all Departments. AVERAGE WORKDAYS PER PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEWED JULY AUGUST SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. CUMULATIVE AVERAGES PROJECTED: 20 . 0 17 . 1 16 . 7 17 . 0 15 . 6 17 . 0 17 . 2 ACTUAL: 20 . 6 21. 5 16 . 3 22 . 3 19 . 6 23 . 5 20. 6 APPLICANT DELAY: 5. 0 5 . 8 4 . 4 4 . 5 3 . 9 4 . 7 4 . 7 CITY PROCESS : 15. 6 15 . 7 12 . 0 17 . 8 15 . 7 18 . 8 15 . 9 Number of Applications: 69 64 57 49 36 63 56 NOTES : 1. "Projected" number of workdays is the number of workdays used to calculate a plan review completion date, which is given to applicants when they file a permit application. 2 . "Actual" is the number of workdays from application to permit issuance. 3 . "Applicant delay" is the number of workdays applications are delayed because of errors, omissions or code violations in the applicants ' plans. 4 . "City process" is the number of workdays used by the city to review and process applications. "Actual" less "Applicant delay" equals "City process" . N. City Management Committee Reorganization Plan as it Relates to Permit Process CITY OF KENT MAYOR CITY COUND CITY ATTORNEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CCH.4 4 TY DEVELCPFtENT Planning Annexation PLANNING Economic Dev Plan Checking Permitting Bldg Inspect BUILDING Business Licenses Code Enforcement IMPLEMENTATION o Realign functional reporting responsibilities o Ease hiring freeze on operational personnel o Direct Department and Division Heads to work out the fine tuning details of the reorganization. No fine tuning details will be accepted that require an overall cost increase. CI1T OF KENf MATOR GEED DRAFT Elf, AI IORA ET AONINIS(RANCH CCnnuxliT vt.'ELIC UORKS RECREATION ANC � {IRE pCll[E DEVEIOpnExt Hunax SER'+ICES ErI� AOM IMTIRAiIYE _____ pLANx ING aROa ERti ACt115lfICN l� EN EO'nCEMENf RE ' SERVICES -- _ AND OEYELpRHENT RECREAIICN SlfpaRESSICN -, CCITT CLERK) EESQIRCES 9LI LDING .-_._- nAlctExxx[E _ L. SERVICES '--- AxOEf RA1x INC -_ CCRRECtIDxS SLppORf .ADVANTAGES: ,_-- SERVICES • Abainistration type sere i<rs (parehas in9. aeeowling, rtcJ uoultl nvv< fr:n Dcpar oxntz [o aoini stw[icn. • Vdrd processing position to City Ctlk to bolter 1pord1rale Council Ccnni:tee records syste+a lhre�gh tlttvnent it a9 ing. New Division of Succor[ Srrvices to consolidate purchasing, Printing aN am tonal services. • Wilding and g,OVVs main:rnano< to public s'orks. --- FINANCE fleet miwga^cnt hardl<o by finance.hill maintenance cone by aubllc ion Real Estate and Capital praleR HanaS,r, asivaeE by R,bl rt Vorts. Code Enf ore rncn[ and Rerni:ing Eene by Ci"'hitY DCVCICp nt Ceeartme^l. Depar l menu are reduced fro. 10 to 7. INi IRMANON SERVICES IMPLEHENIATICN ReRllgn FwcIi.rNal report mg reslaonsibil itws Eose hiring Free:<on Cp<rational personnel Direct Oopamt t and Division Heads to vprt cut the line (wing Cetalls oI :he rear Sanitaticn. No fine toting details vlll x oeceptM that reraire an cv<rall Ccst mrceae. COMMUNITY RECREATION & ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS HUMAN SERVICES FIRE POLICE Council Actividy Planning Property Acquisition Recreation Suppression Patrol City Records Annexation Utility Dev & Maint Arts Prog Training K-9 Personnel Admin Economic Dev Street Dev& Maint Golf Prevention Traffic Training Plan Checking Park Dev & Maint Human Seriices Park Enforc Labor Negotiations Permitting Street Trees c H & CD Investigation Risk Management Bldg Inspect Equip Acq & Maim Health Contract Crime Prevention Budgeting Business Licenses Bldg Dev & Maint Corrections Payroll Code Enforcement Nuisance Cleanup Accounts Payable Financial Reporting Utility Billing Cashiering Traffic Violations Janitorial Purchasing Reprographics Mail Data Processing Telecommunications Ombudsman V. Councilman Jon Johnson's Permit Process Reorganization MCCARTHY,TONY /-KENT70/AD-_-HPDesk-print_ Message. Dated: 04/13/93 at 2145 . Subject: PERMIT PROCESS REORG Contents 2 . Sender: Jon JOHNSON / KENT70/AD TO: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Part 1. TO: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Part 2 . MY PROPOSAL WHICH WAS DISCUSSED AT THE RETREAT WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING: CREATE A NEW DEPARTMENT CALLED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD HAVE TWO DIVISIONS. PLANNING AND BUILDING/CODE ENFOREMENT. HUMAN SERVICES WOULD REMAIN IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. THANKS-JJ VI. Letters from Interested Parties (1/1/91 to present) /* V, L F,ai Cs:ate 05.ia;lors March 8 , 1991 Mr. Robert D. Hutchinson City of Kent 400 West Gowe Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Bob: It has been a pleasure working with you and Jack Fingold on the FlowMcle Corporate headquarters relocation into our Landing Center project. FlowMole's buildout is clearly unusual and required a great deal of "soul searching" 'for all of us. I truly appreciate your deliberate and professional approach in resolving the issues that we encountered. I look forward to working with your department on future projects . Sincerely, Ted WFnaX� cc: Chief Angelio Ed Chow 6 e Sudo I GO R E C E I V E D JUN 19 100+ lip RAIVICO CONSTRUCTION To Oh INkMAYOR Mayor Dan Kelleher 6-17-91 City Of Kent 220 4th Ave So. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor Kelleher: We .recently tiad..occasion to conduct business with the City,,. Of Kent, .and,.in._,the process. of. conducting that business we had' contact with a � number of employees of the city. We thought that our experience merited a letter to you. As a matter of background, our company has operated a manufacturing facility in the city of Auburn for the past ten years, during which period we grew to be the largest manufacturer of our product in the U. S. Approximately a year ago we decided that one of the procedures involved in the manufacture of our product could be done more efficiently "in-house" . As the facilities we were occupying at the time were not suitable for our project, we began a search for a new home. It was also desirable that we own our building rather than lease. Our search for a new facility eventually led us to what used to be "Propulsion Systems", , a manufacturing and office building on 212th and 76th. Our negotiations 'and due diligence on this project took just over a _year.;-_to.-complete. During that period, we had to ask for information"from;" and the assistance of, a number of your city employees: We' re pleased to be able to report that we were always treated with the utmost in courtesy, patience and understanding. The 4understanding part was especially important to us in that as none of us had taken on a project of this nature before, we didn ' t always understand what we were doing, making patience and understanding especially appreciated. Demolition Hammer Bit Specialists 3420 'C' St. N.E., #302 • Auburn, Washington 98002 • 206-872-0665 • 1-800-367-6298 RAMCO CONSTRUCTION TOOLS, INC. The end result is, we purchased the building and are on the way toward bringing a new industry to Kent. Based on our experiences with the following people, we' re convinced we made the right decision in where to locate our business. Jack ,Fingold. Assistant Building Official Lynn Hoffman-Gross. Code Enforcement Char..lene;:rAnderson. Planner Carol Proud. Senior Planner Thanks again to.. these> people for making their part of a very difficult project as easy as they could. 10-6 William Blackburn nnis Johnson Bob Berry President eneral Manager Facility Manager Demolition Hammer Bit Specialists 3420 'C' St. N.E., #302 Auburn, Washington 98002 9 206-872-0665 • 1-800.367-6298 NORTHWARD June 20 , 1991 Mary Kate Gaviglio City of Kent Building Department 220 4th Ave S . Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mary Kate, T_ want to thank you for taking the time and listening to my concerns and opinions regarding the Rescue Rooter permit. You are an extremely fair and knowledgeable person to work with. More than anything I appreciate the time you take to explain exactly what is required and why. As you can understand, it is very difficult to keep up with the current requirements . 1560 140th Ave.N.E. Since 100 cerely, Bellevue,\\A 9S005 ('_ _41-1726 E..,�c06)74 -4157 Jeff Iverson, Project Engineer ",' Northward Development Company CITY OF W)o 12RT12 � Dan Kelleher, Mayc Edward Chow, Jr., City Administrator i > The City o/Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years July 1, 1991 Jim Harris, Planning Director City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98031 Dear Mr. Harris, I recently received a letter from William Blackburn, President, Dennis Johnson, General Manager, and Bob Berry, Facility Manager of Ramco Construction Tools, Inc. in which they compliment City employees and describe the excellent service they received when they decided to relocate to Kent and had occasion to work with Code Enforcement and the Planning Department. You will find a copy of that letter enclosed. The relocation of Ramco Construction Tools, Inc. from Auburn to Kent took nearly a year and they are very pleased with the information and assistance they received from City employees. However, they especially mentioned Charlene Anderson and Carol Proud. It is always a pleasure to receive letters commending and recognizing our employees for the fine job that they do. Please pass along my thanks and congratulations to those who worked with the people from Ramco, and especially to Ms. Anderson and Ms. Proud. Great jobM Since , Dan Kelleher Mayor DK:jb Enclosure l) 1■ yea e„ 1 AN 220 ath AVE. SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 5895 i TELEPHONE (206)859-3359/FAX n 859-3334 _ n 'dear City Of ..i one of your ,)uiirling inspa -ctors « i:.: .. inner) came to our door this morninh:. demanding to ';nc':T .r '.V the stop-;.•Tor -, eSign haC'. ~c:;: our house t'h�t is '-)eing renovated. .. been re:-iover ;=� a very def:=nsiva _attitude even after Wa informed him that the men who are ra=uri i 11I1g the holl�a `.';era the people he needed to talk to. '•'e told }aim -',a-' this' ::Ien Were vcr ' conscientious about their cror;., ],ne�T tie rcgula,-ions and wollld. not have taken the sign c.o:an withoutreason . He continuerl. to arrogantly state that he and gone on vacation and, that it ::as had slapped that sign up , highly unlikely that another ins-pector :;ad '.-)een here in his absence . �7e offered to place a call to the c; nt1c: nn in charr,"e of the : eStlOn house re;OVat1C=S S10 40111Q [ n : i li J ; s . Mr. Tinner Drushad that sungestier- nsic:a and continued to intimidate us with threats of tearin:; out oralls to see aT!at derneath. '.s 'rae stormed off , n;y husband havoc had bean created un put in a call ,-j,,way and I called ='inner to the phone . Reluctantly, he returned, muttering~about being too busy to talk on the phone , and oTas told that the State inspector , as well as another inspector from his own department, had indeed made tine inspection, in his absence , and removed the sign. We feel that an employee of the city should make a special effort to be courteous to the people of the city he is representing and there was no reason for his hostility and insolence , es- pecially ,..,hen he ,,!as i11-infor�ied and wrong. He managed successfully to ruin our 0-av and. a:e sere innocent bystanders . One would t'.iini- that a city employee ;Ton1d feel an oblication to be friendl,r and �'leasant in his ceali_h; with its -)aople. Sincerely, L / �e_nt _ ) ]District 12033 SE 256 Street, Kent, Washington 98031 (206) 852-9550 October 4, 1991 OCT City of Kent 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Ed Chow, Jr., City Administrator Dear Mr Chow: I a'rk taking this opportunity to let you know how much we appreciate the cooperative atmosphere the City of Kent has shown during these past few months. With the efforts of the city agencies assisting the school district, we opened Scenic Hill Elementary on time. The Kent School District, along with the community, commends the City of Kent for their professional approach and their efforts on our behalf. Thank you. nc re y, ral M. Wi le, Assistant Superintendent I usin ss Services Department km cc: Don Wickstrom - Director of Public Works Jim Harris - Planning Director Bob Hutchinson Building Director Barney Wilson Director of Parks and Recreation Norman Angelo Fire Chief Glen Anderson - K.S.D. Bank 221 W.Gowe Street P.O.Box 779 Kent,WA 98032 (206)852-5000 October 11 , 1991 To whom it may concern, As early as February of 1989, Pacific First Bank has been contemplating either building a new facility, or remodeling one of the two facilities it owns in the city of Kent (2nd & Gowe and 4th & Harrison) . Inthe summer of 1989, we started working with Paul Morford to help us evaluate our needs , options, and the costs involved with regard to said options. During that summer, we had settled on the possibility of erecting a 20, 000 square foot , four story office building, with bank facilities on the 1st floor. At that time we went ahead and arranged for a pre-development meeting with the Planning Department, Fire Department, Building Department , Engineering/Traffic Department and Traffic Department . During the meeting it was made very clear to us that Class A office or business space was certainly desired by the city of Kent- We were assured that they would work as closely as possible with us to see the project through to completion as scheduled- The only concerns given to us at that time were the following : Plannine: Site plan looked OK and no set backs required. They are trying to encourage buildings to be constructed adjacent to sidewalks in the downtown area. No parking is required by the city as this zone allows the use of the City parking lot across the street- Staff seemed very receptive to the proposed four story brick building . Fire Department : Reviewed the size of the building and type of construction. The City Fire Marshall made a brief water flow analysis and found existing fire flows adequate - B„ildin Department : The plan examiner reviewed the proposed four story, wood frame , brick veneer building and made brief calculations. He found it to meet code requirements- F.ngi_n . .rine/T a fi . Department: Since the new building was replacing an existing building there would be no new requirements for storm drainage , sewer or water . Traffic : Traffic mitigation costs were discussed in detail with the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer. Their brief analysis is as follows: 20,000 sq ft building with 15 , 000 sq ft of office and Pacific First Bank,A Federal Savings Bank 5 ,000 sq ft of combination drive-in/walk-in banking_ Per their tables , walk-in banking generates 17 trips/ 1000 sq ft and drive-in banking generates 31/1000 sq ft the As time progressed, and the after was discussion with down to Senior the Management of the Bank, point that there would btoward leased meetingCethe The banks Jimmediate ct would be specifically geared needs. Since the scope of the project had changed, we discontinued contact with Paul Morford, but did purchase his option and went ahead and bought thee corner lot purchase was toferect a Smith. The intended purpose new branch facility to better meet the needs of our clients. We hired Kober/Sclater Architects of Seattle, Washington to help us design, plan and build a branch facility the corner of 4th & Smith. Due to the extenssi£eund Planninelvesg and approval process to fund such a project , at the end of 1990. In early 1991, the plan and budget were approved and we were given the go ahead to secure the permits and proceed with the project. In the spring of 1991 , Kober/Sclater went ahead with the pre-development meeting with the City of Kent . They reported back to me that their expectations were much the ewn basimine ness in that the city was seeking quality th Kober/Sclater w date off development . After several meetings wi submitted plans for a new branch_ We were given a July 10 , 1991 , at which time we would have our permits secured in order to proceed 11 with the date t slowlyebecameApainfully s we got closer to the July 10, clear that Kober/Sclater was having problems in securing the al frustration, Kober/Sclater and our own permits. Out of tot bank facilities department called me and asked if I could intervene , or if I knew of anyone else who could get the permit process (which had been stalled by the city) started It was at this point int that I rehired Paul Morford to help us get the permit process rolling again. After a meeting with our facilities department , as well as Kober/Sclater and myself , Paul made several phoic ne calls. One of the calls was made to Don Wickstrom, Diror for the City of Kent and one to Mayor Kelleher . An immediate meeting was scheduled with Mr . Wickstrom, as well as a 5Mro meeting with Mayor Kelleher_ During the meeting Wickstrom it became abundantly clear to me as an observer that there was a lack of communication on the city"s part, with regard to expressing their concerns about the project. They seemed more content to sit on a problem rather thanwleat Kober/Sclater or Pacific First Bank know exac with Mr. problems concerned them. After the meeting Wickstrom we were assured that the lines of communication would be reopened, the problems would not sit in peoples "in- baskets" , and we seemed to be back on track to receive our permits. On or close to July loth, we were issued a Grade & Fill permit and a Foundation permit. We were assured the final building permit would be forthcoming. Once again, around the 20th of July, I received a call out of utter frustration from Kober/Sclater and Bob Anderson (Pacific First Facilities) . Once again I hired Paul Morford to try and get our permit process moving again. Upon going to the City Department and talking to the different departments with Paul it was easy to detect that there was a certain resentment that we were using Paul Morford for this purpose_ This was exhibited by comments from city employees such as, "Here comes trouble" , and outward hostility toward Paul _ When we asked the question, "Why had we been given a completion date of July loth for the permit, when it was quite apparent we would not be receiving it by that date?" . We were told that being given that date was a mistake that we would have to absorb. They were in no way going to take ownership of their mistakes. They wanted to give us a new permit date of August 30, 1991 . During this time it was told to us that the information the city had required to complete the process had actually been sitting in an employees " "in- basket" and had been totally ignored. The city employees considered this to be the bank"s problem and not a problem within their own bureaucracy. After Kober/Sclater, Paul Morford and the bank"s facilities department worked very closely with the city, the permit was issued grudgingly by the city employees . I am a branch manager and not an engineer , nor a developer, but I do manager a staff of 25 employees and operate a business successfully in the City of Kent . Below are my own personal observations on what I saw taking place during this process. 1. In all the pre-development meetings, it was discussed that each of the city departments operated individually_ However, this is not the case . We were held up by one department because they had "heard that an issue had not been resolved in another department" . It seems to me that if they were acting independently with regard to this project, gossip and innuendo would not play a part in determining their own departments actions. 2. The city employees are defensive and not ever willing to give you a plan of how the permit process is supposed to work. Upon asking for a copy of the plan, they state it would be impossible or is not immediately available . They are never willing to show you any kind of plan and basically try to dodge the question. 3. Each department has a tendency to blame another department for their own inadequacies and actually look for ways to stop the permit process, rather than support it. It seems to me that whether you are in business or work for the City of Kent, we are all on the same team. If a company comes good faith and follows the guidelines given by the cit elieve that both the City and Company should work as t o complete the project at hand. This creates a n in situation for everyone involved. Unfortunately, r gh mismanagement, this is not currently the reality in n t is my hope that these issues can be resolved. ly, a 1 0. Cavanaugh Vi Pr sident Ken Bra \h Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Morford FROM: Gary Honaker DATE: October 11 , 1991 SUBJECT: CITY OF KENT - TENANT IMPROVEMENT PERMIT REVIEW TASK FORCE Dear Paul: Pursuant to our telephone convesation, my overview of tenant improvement work accomplished this year is that very little was accomplish_ed.,, I am responsible for a good portion of tha ack of accomplishment in that I didn' t have the necessary time to follow up ongoing dialogue with city officials. However, it is my feeling that city ficals are not committed to improving the permit process. They were courteous to meandtalked about improving the process, but did little to constructively work toward improvement. They chose to focus on their regulatory requirements and lack of sufficient staffing to provide good service. We have suggested they be more customer service oriented and appoint a central person to be accountable or available to customers (Kent business people) for coordina- tion of the process. Coordination between their customers and staff appears to be very fragmented with no one person being accountable/available to coordinate the process with the applicant. Accountability; appears to me to be an internal management problem. Finally, my customers have related several 'horror stories to me with regard to mostly "rudeness" and lack of cooperation during the process. I discussed a recent situation with Mr. Hutchinson who wasn' t much help. I have names of individual applicants, but r.cw that their permits have finally been approved, they are reluctant to come forward for fear of reprisals from the city. However, these individuals may consent to discuss i the matter further with you. In summary, working to help improve the city tenant permit process is a time consuming and difficult task that can be accomplished if we could work together toward a common goal. Good luck and I would like to continue to participate on the task force. CCA14J �T� f llcS�l Q I 1 J3C wJ �IJ e1� xi �`1 12z/�Z � \ eF�/�YI(3�Z mtr'�'-TINCY C�U✓''1M�%/LCt� 9- .1Nb03TR!/4L (foUNC/L . 1 ..$f1-T NE�CT� 7D 'Cf72o� ,�jLa r�1] ll�2lNG- rNc-/�'�E�TiN� w� B2ir�< D15C-�SSr"D TfYC P=� rr/�/tocc-sS N-E,K OP/N/ON uvAs TNf 77 K /UT_.i{%S I, T� 6?9sjE sT FRsr��T ���c ry.r �iro�Cz ram' sr, i . i i i r C To �Whori, it Ma;' Coi-ICel-1-1 : F V ID e e:-1 1.ri h cin I� h u I i n,,-- u i file (1 o I-,t 1-1 1'",a 1-1 C., years . During t`-I a 1:. 1 111 1 `1-i a v e- Built. (-�Ullty area f L�r several homes within the (-'!T'-y ant J u i-;d i n . hu n o t f LD r s e v e r a i ye-ai-s . In Ju (i ly t this Yeal- I stal-zed r, cc-)ristructicri of a 11home in the ne', c,Plat f 11 aw"r lCkge d -time after startiric; c-C)l'structiOn , I met the insi:,ectoi- I Would be working with . Mr . Jim Tinner . night frr'in the 'start . I g(D-( tll-le his attitude . He acted as if he was going to make danim, sure that I did not get away with anything , and that I had better S not try . During the cr.)n ru Stctiori of I pro 1C 7 ZWO OCCaSion-- wher=` 11 . Tinner caiiie onto the. sltc and a,C t L C. I -- L y told 1 7cl-le wc)rl--e— 1r; - -cp woi-3� and leave the project , for no good reason . Thesides on my projec:t was - told to leave . and i could not get him back foi several days . When Mr . Tinner came to do the --nspection for drywall nailing, he ripped Some drywall tape off of the wall and told my taper to stop work and get c',ft of the job . The taper started to clean his tools up while Mr . Tinner went through t-ne house cussing and swearing about the builder . After a MInUtres "it? Sigrled i Cle perms- tDff .. ai-ld told the taper he could stay . This occu,led on August 27t'CL . I have worked with many , many inspectors over the years , and I cannot ever remember having a problem with any tuilding inspector . In my opinion Jim Tinner should not be in a position of power . or in a Position where he has to deal with people on a regular basis . It won ' t- take long for Mr . Tinner to give the. City Of Kent Building Department a very bad reiDutation . . Someone from the department should go up to Ha-yqkrddge and talk to any of the other builders currently building ,here . Sincerely, om eichert , Pre-sadent 2'177-9508 DATE 10/1/91 December 30, 1991 KIRK G. ANDERSON Vice president Management 8 operations Mr.Bob Hutchinson Building Official City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032 Subject: Fisher Commerce Center Norco Tenant Improvement Permit Disabled Parking Requirements Dear Mr. Hutchinson, Thank you for taking time on Monday, December 23, 1991 to discuss our concerns wi th the current requirements for disabled parking at the Fisher Commerce Center. As discussed, we desire the opportunity to meet with you and the City Attorney to further discuss and determine how we can best comply with these City requirements. I understood from our meeting on the 23rd that you would be willing to host such discussions beginning some time during the week of January 6, 1992. I will contact you on Monday,January 6, and see if we can schedule a time for our meeting. In the interim,I understand it is important for your office to have an acknowledgement from us of the "temporary"nature of any disabled parking compliance associated with your office's issuance of Building Permits for tenant improvement work at our properties. By "temporary" I understand this to mean that once an acceptable method is determined and agreed upon, those permits previously issued under this"temporary" condition would be reopened and the disabled parking requirements addressed. Therefore,please accept this letter as our acknowledgment. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to find a workable disabled packing plan which can be implemented to address the requirements of the City of Kent. We look forward to working with you to resolve this issue. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, KG A/lks weal-26 cc: Cathi Korth, City of Kent,Plans Examiner Ken Fisher -3185 • (206) 682-7i33 Fax (206) 682-3211 PROPERTIES INC. 1525 one union Square • Seattle, Washington 98101 • 307 N.E.83rd Street Redmond,WA 98052 wailing Address:P.O. Box 140 • Redmond.WA 98073 (205) 881-0101 — FAX; (206)867.9638 Ce^.rac:or.Licn ;n.�3 6':-LLcG'25:37 TO: Paul Morford FROM: Dean Chaussee RE: Kent Permit Process The only permit we ' ve applied for in Kent (in over ten years) has been the permit for the construction of the Kent Senior Housing Project at 615 West Harrison Street. We applied for the permit on September 6 , 1991 after having several s:eetings with the City Staff including a Pre-Development meeting the purpose of which was to attempt to set forth the City' s requirements , by Department, and policies . The permit was ready to issue on December 18 , 1.991. We found that in many instances , Kent had policies and Code interpretations that weren' t made known to us and that there didn' t seem to be clear coordination between reviewing Depart- ments . It was also difficult to determine the status of progress , if any, of the permit as it went through various Departments . I ' ve been involved with a number of building permit processes in a good many jurisdictions and, if asked, I ' d make the r:allowing recommendations : 1. A hermit coordinator with authority to determine the status of any permit in any Department and to coordinate the efforts so a permit doesn' t set in a Department awaiting action by either the applicant or the Department. 2 . A central system of tracking permits relative to established target dates . 3 . An acceptance of responsibility by Departments £or meeting target dates . I 'm sure that many permit applications are accompanied by incomplete and/or insufficient information but in our instance we had about seven experienced licensed professionals involved in the design and engineering of the project. An Equal opportunity Company p�"art 2 . from a Ms. Mindy Holman 10714 - SE 264t11 T recieved a complaint by phone 29th regarding the permit process Kent, 98031 phone # 852-4831, on January on a one room addition with a bathroom. Ms. Holman alleges that: The permit was applied for the beginning of October at which time they were gold it would take 27 days to process. wo weeks after 27 days were up were told they would be contacted; didn't as hear from permit; waited behind longer;schedul ea to call aback 1 holidayving little December9th;wDec. 9th the holiday had put permit called and were asked to bring down more info - husband left s; called k to back - info that day and was told it would didn'behave oinfo gle ivenre dtwo weeks earlier t only wo weeks later and was told p given a list of a number of other the info was found but he was then verbally g things that needed to be done. He asked for a list in writing which was refused the permit was issued the following day. of nf The foundation was poured as appve roved - the inspector thenlr None of this requementsdwere mnoted lon different changes that need to be done. the approved plans or anywhere in writing that they are reirements . very frustranted. To make a long story short -- Ms. Holman's concerns are: 1. The length of time to get a permit. Requirements are not stated either on the approved application or anywhere 2 . Requ' How can requirements be met if not informed before work else in writing. is completed? it if you would follow up on this complaint and let me know I would appreciate the final outcome. Thank you. Kelli End of Item 107 . Start of Item 108 . Dated: 01/30/92 at 1206 . Message. Subject: Citizen Complaint Contents: 2 . Sender: Kelli BCC: Jan BANISTER D/N NT70/AD KENT70/AD Part 1. FROM: Kelli O'DONNELL / KENT70/AD TO: Ed CRAWFORD / KENT70/PD cc: Ed CHOW / KENT70/AD Dan KELLEHER / KENT70/AD Alana MCIALWAIN / KEN/PD/AD Kelli ROGERS / s1:>it� i� s �til�tEst>r=� ,rchaecL A.I.A. March 2 , 1992 City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S . Kent, Wa 98032-5895 Re : M R R Joint Venture Attn: Allice L . Shobe I wanted to write and thank you for your help on February 5 , 1992 , regarding the addition we are trying to do . Actually , everyone in the meeting was helpful . Our problem with the landscaping and firetruck turnaround though was more a planning question than any other building official . Our office does work all over Western Washington , Alaska , and Hawaii . We are used to someone telling us what to do regarding planning situations , but , not asking us how they can help like you did . I wish I was doing more work in the City of Kent . I am still in shock over the short time frame you issue building permits . Vie are used to 6 months to a year for many of our projects . We don ' t know why it takes that long but it is extremely difficult to work over that long of a period . Again , thank you for your help . Sincerely , Doug 12 Landsem , Architect , AIA 119 N„rth G,minc•rial Suilc I I iU I;,Iliiigli.uu, 1^.rA 9ti225 (206)733-2-166 I.iccnsscd Arrliilvcl in Iaw•iii, and Ala5k,a HUTCHINSON, BOB / KENT70/FR - HPDesk print. ------------------------------------------ Message. Dated: 04/09/92 at 1822 . Subject: Thank you! Sender: Lin BALL / KENT70/PL Contents: 2 . TO: Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR Part 1. TO: Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR CC: Jerri BROEFFLE / KENT70/PL Jim HARRIS / KENT70/PL Fred SATTERSTROM / KENT70/PL Part 2 . I want to thank you for all of the time and support that your Department gives to our Housing Repair Service Program. Jerri told me how responsive you were this week to her need for an inspection of a complicated roof job for one of our clients. She and I both appreciate how you and your staff are consistently supportive and helpful to her in implementation of our Program. In light of the recent formation of the new Office of Housing and Human Services, I wanted you to be aware that Jerri's Housing Repair program will still be part of this Office, which will continue to operate out of the Planning Department. Jerri's relationship with your Department in the carrying out of this Program will not change. Thanks again --- I appreciate your support, and look forward to a continue great relationship with your Department in the future. Lin ,I NI KENT CHAMBER April 17 , 1992 OF COMMERCE MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Morford, Chair Tenant Improvement Task Force FROM: Ellen MacDonald Smith, Marketing Director Kent Chamber of Commerce Over the past couple of years , while calling on businesses new to the Kent area, I have been told of the frustration and delays many of these companies have experienced with regard to securing building permits, occupancy permits, and the like, from the City of Kent. Some typical examples follow: Conflict and disagreement between City planning officials and Landlords regarding occupancy requirements (after new construction is over 50% complete, in many instances) , witli the tenant caught in the middle. A complaint I have heard on more than one occasion is the requirement to strengthen bearing walls so as to be earthquake-proof, requiring an earthquake consultant' s. report and resulting in delays and additional expense. The inability of a business to get a straight, definitive answer from the City - one way or the other - as to code compliance requirements . Additional requirements surface along the way on the permit process road, or change outright; the procedure gets mired down into a sea of correspondence, unreturned phone calls , lost documentation, misunderstandings , and non-conclusive direction from the City. Building inspectors , in many instances , are not knowledgeable in the areas they are empowered to inspect. Permit department personnel are often rude and uncooperative, make threats and, in some cases , are insulting. There are feelings of dislike for Kent among these businesses . There is a desire to move from the area and stated intentions to encourage colleagues to "stay away" . Attached is a list of some of the companies that have experienced a part, or all , of the aforementioned examples . KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4-92 Kent Permit Process Problems Easy Up Storage Systems David Kleier, V.P . 8731 S . 212th Kent . . . . . . . . . . 395-2033 Golden Pacific Embossing City withheld a building Matt Bishop, Partner permit until they installed 21246 68th S . a $24, 000 outside elevator Kent . . . . . . . . . . 395-4653 for handicapped. Ivy High Lift - Non-member Formerly Johnson High Reach Gifford Akings, General Manager 8721 S . 218th St . Kent . . . . . . . . . . 872-6860 ATS Automation They' re "in" but it was a huge Bob Leonard, CEO hassle - nightmare 7623 S . 180th Bob hates the city of Kent . Kent . . . . . . . . . 251-9680 His nightmare .tale of trying to get an occupancy permit mirrors many of those we have already heard. He has been effective in turning 2 companies away from Kent and sending them to Tukwila . He will continue to do this and, if he didn' t have a lease, he' d be outta here too . Nelson Truck City Planning told him he could Roy Nelson, owner (owns bldg . ) go to Sumner or Puyallup if he 20063 84th Ave s . didn' t like the rules in Kent . Kent . . . . . . . . . 395-3825 Pasta Bella Hugh Golden, Manager 1313 W. Meeker St . ttC-3 Kent . . . . . . . . . 859-4681 - over - Les Schwab Tire Center City found out they didn't have Ken Hooper, Manager a business license - planning 758 N. Central people were crawling all over . Kent . . . . . . . . . . 852-2950 Nothing conformed to code & the building was too old to renovate completely - one wall dates back to 1900 . The compromise was to revoke Schwab' s "Grandfather Clause" and issue a current license . KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE l l� tt , r �(ti �� `L � 1' C11C�Gilic tLT-VT ; SOUND EXTERIORS 4630 Pac Highway E. B-22 m 4y /9 79 9 At Tacoma, WA 9"24 1200) 922•:�19 -- rrAyof� s office Re: 1>ZAIIZ.t Applicat ton boa C�iecad2 C� aeket 70 hI S KONOR , 7fiC P(AyOA & 411Lo,'7EVF-R 17 MAY CONCERN : PP ,Zazz accept .this coaaG�pord¢rca a-a an cxpae-Seion o� owt coRcei:r ore.¢ zhe ia �uunce o{° a Building pe-zmi 0�r d4ccdeine �o.= p 2Gc uc2ing -this p¢Zmzt , pee C Liy /roEicu, i-6 f7c;/ ZZ, 1991 . :Jua fc nwr.�. ocb delcay� le�rencl our ecrLf2oEr .this deudlinc Row cppea.¢f� .to ltz in jzop¢zdtl. ii� fhi.o .fia,e , we onL e•skiny fhuf ycu duly note our concezr„ in t`/ze 2verti thcc.t a �oemcl co,r_p Z. m y wise, 7hQnk ycu �o, yours con.o�deac;fion. Since2QEU , � Pl Z2 2, owr.ea Scunc! Ext.enion_n ,!ec !ua.2ne,�. n.2n2sa,:ra.tcttg Ca�cccc:a GceKet cc ; City o� Kent Ch.am:-mac o� Camnca�ccc MONTGOMERY,PURDUE,BI.ANHINSHIP &AUSTIN ATTORNEYSATLAW 5&t FLOOR COLUMBIA CENTER FRED I?O'S5 ROBER7A PURDUE PS 701 FIFITI AVENUE DAVID B.HANSEN JOHN D.BLANICINSHM,PS MICHAEL W.BABCOCK GALE D.BARBEE SEATf(2 6)682- 090 9N10+ -_ (206)682-7090 GEORGE W.AYERS.PS JERRY W.SPOONFMORE FACSIMILE(206)625-9534 STUART P.KASTNER WILLIAM K.GOODWIN ]OSFPH C BROWN.IR M.WAYNE BL IR DONALD R.MORRISON LYNN Q HURST ROBERT M.BARTL ETT HUTREY L PEW9 TAMARA L ROE cHRISTOPHER.L HIRST AL AN L MONTGOMERY scarf&EASiFA WE11AM MONTGOMERY(19" M'CH"H"R GOSSLER June 1, 1992 ALAN F.AUSTIN(1951) CAMI iRTAYLOR RALSTON CARL&LUCKERAIIA(RETIRED) JAMES H.WISHAAR PEGGY C HUGHES Norman G. Angelo, Fire Chief King County Fire Protection District No. 37 24611 - 116th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98031 Re: Covington Fire Station Dear Chief Angelo: As you know, the project has now been accepted as complete and the lawsuit has been dismissed. The remaining functions should be rather routine concerning monitoring lien claims, obtaining certificates from the Departments of Revenue and Labor and Industries, and ultimately paying retainage. I know this has been a difficult and frustrating project which has taken much more time and expense than it should have in a fair world. My experience has been that in such projects it is very difficult for clients to focus energies on resolving conflicts rather than giving in to the temptation to let the lawyers fight it out. Rarely do lawyers arguing to courts satisfactorily resolve such conflicts. You and your staff have managed to keep yourselves focused on moving the project forward rather than succombing to such temptations. I believe the Fire District has been much better served by those actions, even though significant time and expense have been involved. I am convinced the time and expense would have been much greater if litigation had been the emphasis rather than finishing the project and resolving claims. I am also aware that you have not only spent a great deal of your own time on this project, but have also had to devote a significant amount of administrative time to it. In that regard, I have found Chris Martin,Terri Nee, and Pat Pawlak to all have been extremely helpful and professional in working through the many difficulties we encountered. They uniformly remained professional and helpful throughout the project, even when the problems were difficult and frustating or my requests were burdensome. Norman G. Angelo, Fire Chief June 1, 1992 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to have served you. Sincerely, Christopher L Hirst CLH/tdo/v6665 bcc: Mr. Jeffrey L Pew6 GERALD STONE, ARCHITECT PIER 70,SUITE 3 7,SEATTLE,WA 981ZI (Z06)443-0703 June it, 1992 Jack Fingold Building Inspection Department City of Kent 220 4th Ave S Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mr. Fingold, Thank you for taking time to meet with Jim Bitondo, the owner of DITCO, and myself concerning the proposed addition to his building on East Titus. I have enjoyed having Jim as a client because of his deep interest in both constructing an attractive building and providing a comfortable working environment for his employees. I feel strongly that your extensive knowledge of the code and your willingness use it to help us resolve some of the problem areas will certainly help Jim to realize his goals. Sincerely, �y Gerald Stone KENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE June 23, 1992 Mayor Dan Kelleher CiLy U,f Kc at City Hall ' 220 4th Ave . S . Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mayor Kelleher : Thank you for giving the Kent Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to review and respond to the Permit Process Final Report produced by the Mayor' s Advisory Committee on -he permit process . We continue to support decisions and a`ctions the City takes that make good business sense, while also being sensitive to services that our members view to be important . The Kent Chamber supports the Permit Report recommendations because they address several basic business principles that we believe will have a positive impact for our members and on our mutual economic development goals . The following is a summary of some of those impacts . cc : Jim White Donald Olson Paul Mann James Harris Leona Orr Ed Crawford Jim Bennett Norman Angelo Christi Houser Ron Spang Jon Johnson Brenda Jacober Judith Woods L .A. (Tony) McCarthy Edward Chow Jr . Barney Wilson Roger Lubovich Don Wickstrom 841 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTH,SUITE 105 P.O. BOAC 128 KENT,WASHINGTON 98035 (206)854 1770 June 23, 1992 Page 2 * The plan sets aggressive target performance expectations for the issuance of permits . The current twenty to fifty-four day turnaround on permits has had a significant negative impact on our ability to achieve economic development goals in Kent . The current process also increases the mitigation costs associated with the expansion of existing businesses and residences . The draft recommendations set aggressive performance standards that places accountability and performance together in one new department . We recommend that while the one- to three-day turnaround on permits will probably fit most requests, there should be enough flexibility built into eventual performance standards to accommodate circumstances or events that may require an extended review period. Such circumstances would include : 1 . Additional health and safety concerns requiring more technical assistance . 2 . Temporary work load influences . 3 . Incomplete or inaccurate initial plans . We also recognize that we must take shared responsibility, as applicants, to ensure that we understand the application process and provide complete and correct plans . Improving permit turnaround time can positively effect our mutual efforts in revitalization, economic development, and future capital projects in the greater Kent area . There should also be some beneficial revenue implications for the City . June 23, 1992 Page 3 * A major component of the recommendations provide for the consolidation of services (reducing staffing levels when possible) while improving services . As economic growth slowed in the Kent Valley, we' ve all had to find better ways of accomplishing more for less . The philosophy and organizational approach taken in the report makes good sound business sense . The Kent Chamber of Commerce concurs with the central theme of the reorganization, which expresses a goal of reducing expenses and greatly improving productivity while reducing staffing levels . We support and encourage this type of proactive method of organizational management, and believe efforts like this should be the first step in an ongoing review of city operations . An important component of this proposal is making sure that an environment of collaboration exists between the proposed new department and other City departments . This collaboration will be crucial, particularly when review of technical issues such as fire suppression or security are involved . * The initial reporting of the new department would be to City administration. Reorganizing the new department to initially report to administration is a good idea . It allows for close monitoring during the initial plan implementation and through the transitional period. This period should be an opportunity for administration to set up a tracking and review process that will indicate how and if your expectations are being met . An important ingredient of the review process will be to establish a vehicle for feedback from applicants using the new process . One practice that has worked well within business reorganizations is to establish a reorganization project team with a team leader who would report to the administration/Mayor' s office . The project team leader would deal with the day-to-day implementation activity while keeping the City' s executive branch informed on process issues . June 23, 1992 Page 4 * The creation of a new Development Permits & Inspections Department. The creation of this department puts accountability, performance, personnel, and funding in one area where the work is to be done . It also creates a one-stop-shopping concept for a permit applicant . Rather than jumping through the various stops an applicant must now make, there will be only one stop . In the current process an applicant needs to go through several departments to ascertain a reasonable expectation for a permit response time . The new department would be driven by a set of realistic performance expectations which would include responsibility for any additional collaboration with other City departments . This change should improve productivity, cost control and customer service objectives . It is our understanding that the draft recommendations do not extend to major project activity . When a permit comes in, a rating or grading system could assist the new department differentiate between its responsibilities - and that of major project responsibilities . This would allow for additional efficiencies . Improvements gained by the creation of this new department should help both the applicant and the City' s efforts to improve the time taken to issue a permit . In addition to supporting the Mayor' s Advisory Committee' s recommendations, we also support the City' s effort to be a leader in this needed change . There are four strategic benefits that we feel will result from implementation of the team recommendations : 1 . A dramatic improvement in permit issuance response time and application processing . 2 . Implementation will provide an additional selling point and attract new business to Kent, while encouraging existing business to remain in Kent . 3 . Sets a platform for aggressive performance standards and organizational efficiencies to be developed and implemented within the new proposed department and other city departments . 4 . Reduces costs, improves productivity, and establishes accountability within the permit process . June 23, 1992 Page 5 The Kent Chamber recognizes the challenge you will face with implementation of this plan . Certainly a critical element will be the selection of a future department head for the Development Permits and Inspections Department . The challenge will be finding a candidate who possesses the ability to understand the technical needs of the department and also has the ability to manage and communicate effectively with others . If asked, we stand ready to assist as a partner in any way you feel. to be appropriate in that process . Your task "force' s proposal reflects the positive results that can be achieved from working and collaborating together, and developing new and innovative approaches to the challenges we face . We look forward to continuing to work with you on future issues . Sincerely, Chris King President ThammellCrowCompany _ .,,. — --. ... w:.�w_cc.r'u::,.i.+ws��.r-+.w.r�ru+--�,s�a::w.r:.�.a:c.:c�..�.++-.:..v✓...:. �.rcYY'..'v'.uv iGLt:YX1.1'+u+rt_'sa�4.u't�J+`+3� "Y4ylisC 5601 Sixth Avenue August 13, 1992 P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washinglon 98108 Mayor Dan Kelleher 206/762-4750 CITY OF KENT r� , / Fax' 206/763-9871 220 Fourth Avenue South G���� _ Kent, WA 98032 RE: Carol Proud Dear Dan: I just returned from vacation and learned of the decision to lay off Carol Proud. In our view, this is a big loss for the City of Kent Planning Department, as Carol has been very cooperative with us in the development of our industrial projects for the past 5 years. We trust that the City of Kent will continue to be a pleasant place to develop in her absence. Carol was always willing to cooperate with our requests, while always "playing by the rules". We found her to be flexible when codes allowed and she always represented the best interests of the City. We hope that this attitude will continue in the Planning Department. One attribute of Carol that made her especially unique among planners across all municipalities was her willingness to meet with investors and work within their guidelines. She played a key role in the closing of our Kent East Corporate Park in which New York Life Insurance invested over $40 million in the Kent Valley. Additionally, she was instrumental in our most recent land acquisition from Glacier Park Company, Kent North Corporate Park, by giving Winmar (Safeco Insurance) the assurance they needed that the City of Kent was a predictable municipality from which to obtain grading and building permits.'. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to give me a call at any time. As always, it is a pleasure doing business in the City of Kent and we trust that our 20 year history with your City will remain as excellent as always. Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY ohrison` Principal\ KJ:lg Iglkj\dk0813.1tr cc: Jim Harris, Planning Director Jim Bennett, City Council Member Judy Woods, City Council President Leona Orr, City Council Member Jim White, City Council Member Christi Houser, City Council Member Paul Mann, City Council Member Jon Johnson, City Council Member Terence L. Wong Attorneys 2023 120th Avenue NE, Suite 200 ipG ptYRII I DILN I Bellevue, Washington 98005 rr of KENO _J Telephone: (206) 453-0672 August 17 , 1992 James P. Harris Planning Director City of Ken_ 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 Re: Rivers Edge Business Park 19017 , 19039 , and 19201 62nd Avenue So. Kent, Washington Dear Mr. Harris: I want to thank you and your staff for your very prompt reply to my letter dated August 14 , 1992 requesting a zoning and building compliance with your departments ' regulations for the above referenced commercial buildings in Kent, Washington. We were in one of those situations where response had to be almost immediate, and you and your department rose magnificently to the occasion. Thank you again for such an effort. Sincerely, n I Terence L. Wong xc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor T G. C. FINN CONSTRUCTION CO. September 4,1992 RECEI !! L—' La'. City Of Kent Mayor And City Council Persons OCT 14 1992 Kent City Hall Kent, Washington OFFICE OF THE MAYOR -_ Dear Mayor And Council Persons: I'am writing this letter per your request to describe my experience in building the Covington Fire Station for the King County Fire District #37 . The project administration was handled by in house personnel? Norm Angelo heading the project with Chris Martin assisting. G.C. Finn Construction Co. attented the pre-bid meeting inwhich I had my first meeting with Norm Angelo. He gave a fifteen minute speech to all bidders about how tight the budget was and about how up front and fair an individual he was. My first impression was that I could work with the district and felt confident about delivering an agreesive bid on the project. The Supplemental Conditions to the project were of great concern. My attorney said that these changes to the standard conditions as outlined in the Supplemental Conditions make this contract a "OWNER WIN - CONTRACTOR LOOSE AGREEMENT", but said that the owner by law has to be fair in the eyes of the court. My attorney recommended to accept these conditions if we felt we could work with the owner. I did, so we proceeded with the bid process and won the contract. The project began on schedule, and right up front Norm Angelo' s true colors came to the for front. The architect was requesting changes be made to the project in the form of a Proposal Request. G.C. Finn spent alot of time pricing them out with back up support. The District disapproved almost everyone, but then came back with a Construction Change Authorization, forcing G.0 Finn to proceed with the change at a later date on a not to exceed the original estimated price. The revised Supplemental Conditions did not allow the contractor to bill for any more than what was originally estimated, forcing the contractor to absorb the costs of all increases and the additional time spent documenting the costs for reimbursement. This goes back to the "OWNER WIN - CONTRACTOR LOOSE AGREEMENT". The contractor hosted weekly project meetings per contract documents to help facilitate project progress. Several times during the coarse of these meetings Norm Angelo was present. During a couple of these meetings he verbally intiminated his appointed assistant (Chris Martin) , that if he does anything wrong or if any mistakes are made , his career is at stake. I felt very imbarrassed and sorry for Chris Martin, to have to work under such conditions. Chris Martin would not discuss this matter at all. He was clearly very much afraid and intimidated of this man. I have never seen anything like this before, Norm Angelo manages by intimidation and clearly lacks mutual respect from others. He has a tough time working with people on a even level. Norm Angelo through his contract management tried to acquire the upper hand on G.C. Finn through very agreesive and unfair contract interputation. Examples : 1 . There were 70 plus changes to the contract with no extentions of time. Norm 13601 62nd NORTHEAST KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033 • (206) 821.7664 G. C. FINN CONSTRUCTION CO. Angelo would not agree to any extention of time to the contract or authorize any overtime to complete the extra work. He was requesting changes to be made to the project after the established completion date that had to be completed prior to a Certificate Of Occupancy would be issued. It was as if he was forcing G.C. Finn to overrun contract time so he could impose liquidated damages. 2. The project was issued a Certificate Of Occupancy by King County Building And Land Development on May 25th, G.C. Finn turned the project over to the District the first week of June, the District occupied and began using the entire building the third week of June, And Norm Angelo determined that the project was Substantially Complete on July 12th. G.C. Finn requested his reason for this late date several times with no response. The man clearly acts outside the terms of the agreement and feels he does not have to answer to anybody. 3. G.C. Finn is to receive a complete list of items to be completed or corrected at the time of substantial completion per contract documents. G. C. Finn received one list then, and continued to receive additional lists for the next 12 months. Norm Angelo intentions were clearly not to accept the project, but to hold G.C. Finn hostage . This policy was one that he implemented on the two other general contractors that were on going at the same time. In this letter you asked me to describe my experience in building the Covington Fire Station for King County Fire District #37. The above described experiences were only a few inwhich we encountered. This total experience was not one I wish to experience again. Norm Angelo' s "I WIN - YOU LOOSE POLICY"S" is an attitude that is not healthy for anybody, nor is it one that has gone unnoticed. I since have discussed my experience with other contractors who have done work with Norm Angelo, and they also confirm that they too, experienced the same treatment. Local contractor associations and Surety companies will continue to be notified of the kind of management policy's to be expected if they decide to undertake a project under Norm Angelo 's control. G.C. Finn Construction Co. has been completing public works projects for 12 years without any unpleasant experiences, including other fire stations outside District #37. Never have I come up against such a individual that clearly ignors what is contracturally agreed tQ and tries to implement his own policy,s with total disrespect for what is fair and equitable to both parties. G.C. Finn had no other choice but to hire a attorney, and force Norm Angelo to act under the agreement, and have him reimburse G.C. Finn for his poor management policy's. I hope this helps you in your review. One can only hope that the City Of Kent Mayor And Council do not ignor what the public sector is trying to communicate to them. My understanding is that this is not the first time a complaint has been voiced out about Norm Angelo 's management policy's. Sincerely, <. —7 77 7 _ Gregory Finn President 13601 62nd NORTHEAST . KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033 . (206) 821.7664 20206 72NP AVENUE SOU'rll KP.NT, WASHINGTON 98032 (206) 575-8787 October 20, 1992 Chief Norm Angelo Fire Chief CITY OF KENT 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 SUBJECT: TENANT IMPROVEMENT BUILDING PERMITS PROCESSING TIME Dear Chief Angelo: We have been following, with interest, progress relative to review of the building permit process particularly as regards tenant improvements. We were delighted to hear, during our most recent discussions, that you believe a ton (10) day turn-around period from submittal to issuance for tenant improvement pen-nits would be achievable providing the applicant made the submittal accurately and completely. We believe such a tum-around period is consistent with our objectives and would meet our needs. Specifically, we were delighted to to review the Proposed Plan and Organization for the Permit Center and believe it will work well as an alternative method of expediting the tenant improvement permit process. We have, for over a decade, enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the City of Kent and staff and believe that their continued proactive efforts to enhancing permit processes is of benefit to all parties and should be continued. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this current review of the building permit process and look forward to a continuing successful relationship with the City of Kent. Kind sir 'ar �, ~f Jac ennett l JRB:ng CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS is the designation of the Tnralccs under a Declaration of Trust, as amended and restated, on file with the Secretary of the Commornveallh of Miassitchwella, and neither the shareholders nor the TNStCes, officers, employees or agents of the Trust created thereoy, nor any of their personal assets, shall be Ilable hereunder, and all persons dealing with the Trust shall look softy to the Trust estate for the payment of any claims hereunder or br the performance hereof. HUTCHINSON,BOB / KENT70/FR - HPDesk print. ------------------------------------------ age. Dated: 10/21/92 at 1730. Subject: COMPLEMENTS FROM BOEING Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 2. TO: Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR Part 1 . TO: Norm ANGELO / KENT70/FR Mary BERG / KENT70/FR Bob HUTCHINSON / KENT70/FR Part 2. AT THE CHAMBER BOARD MEETING TODAY, A STATUS REPORT ON THE PERMIT STUDY WAS GIVEN. DON MCDANIEL PASSED ON SOME GOOD COMMENTS ABOUT THE EFFORT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS PUT INTO THEIR REPORT. AFTER THE MEETING DAN JOHNSON FROM BOEING ALSO EXPRESSED HIS APPRECIATION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF ON SOME OF THE RECENT INSPECTIONS HE NEEDED. HE UNDERSTOOD THE CONSTRAINTS YOU ARE UNDER AND WAS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS. I ALSO EXTEND MY THANKS FOR REALLY BENDING TO MEET THE COMMUNITY NEEDS. CITIZEN INQUIRY/REQUEST FOR ACTION NAME DATE ADDRESS TELEPHONE a 70 47 (H) (W) CITY RESIDENT (Mess) C 0 N C E R N - lay �� S� -_ • ACT ON: DISCUSSED WITH: DATE TIME DATE TIME CC: PERSON TAKING CALL PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ACTION FINAL DISPOSITION November 31 1992 R E C E I V E D CRANE NOV 0 3 1992 . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR FIAT_ i+RVplKri Mr. Jack Fingold City of Kent Chief Plumbing Inspector 220 4th Avenue S Kent, Wa. 98032 RE: TENANT IMPR0vEMENIS- LIQUID AIR- Kr.NT Gentlemen: Mike Reed from Right And Tight Plumbing, notified our agent in Kent on 10/16/92 of difficulty getting a shower stall to pass local code requirements. The problem, as you are aware, lies in the depth of the seat. Your code requires the seat to extend to .within two inches of the threshold on a 36" shower, and the unit fell short of that requirement. In December, Mike submitted his drawings for approval to obtain a permit to plumb this facility. At that time, the depth of the seat was over- looked by everyone. Now, a prefabricated shower is installed and to replace the seat means replacing the entire shower area with a tiled in application. This would cost Mike at least $4,500.00. My understanding `is that this shower facility is on the 2nd floor of an elevated building which is inaccessible to the physically challenged. There is no elevator to the 2nd floor,. nor is there a ramp that can be furnished to ,get a person in a wheelchair to the 2nd floor. I am sure this shower stall was not put on the 2nd floor to challenge - anyone's physical ability; they simply needed a shower stall and this is what was selected. I don' t realistically believe a physically handicapped person could or would need to-.access this shower facility. For all practacality, if they can reach this shower stall, the depth of the seat should prove suitable. Crane Plumbing has recently changed the depth of the seat on this particular model to meet various code requirements, including Kenc.' s. We ask that you please spare Right and Tight Plumbing the expense of removing this unit. We feel that in this particular instance, it is 1 in everyone's best interest to allow this stall to reamin as it is currently installed. Thanks for your consideration. Yours very tr ly, �- 7 �1?'� Ja per Stephchson, Product Mgr• , Acrylic CR/PL, INC. 8290 South Centro '_ ressway Do((as. Texas 75239 214/371-8700 cc: Charles Burke Burke-West Sales Mike Reed Right and Iight Plumbing Mr. Dan. Kelleher Mayor of Kent STY OP uv� - Dan Kelleher, Mayor Norman G. Angelo, Fire Chef 8 E C E I V E L Michael Reed, President NOV l 61992 Rite-n-Tite Plumbing OFFICE OF THE MAYOFk P.O. Box 1964 Auburn, Wa. 98071 November 12 , 1992 Subject: Liquid Air Corp. 8008 222 Ave. So. Kent, Wa. Dear Mr. Reed, This letter is offered to clarify the shower manufactures letter of ur November Nov er 31 1992 . A building permit application acco panied by construction drawings wa ceived by the City of to construct two proposed new restroom face e first story of an existing two story structure. Following plan review, a building permit was issued citing code requirements for compliance with 1990 WAC 51-101 Regulations for Barrier Free Facilities. The language contained in the 1990 WAC 51-10, Section 511 (e) , requires " . . . In every accessible shower stall 3 feet by 3 feet, a full depth seat shall be provided. . . . " and then goes on to provide an exemption to the requirement for a flush threshold " . . . .provided that the seat extends to within 2 inches of the outer face of the stall. " Although the full intent of this code language is not clear, it would seem reasonable that wheel chair transfer to or from a seat within a stall without a threshold could reasonably be accomplished provides the chair is directly adjacent to the seat and within reach range of the grab bar. To further complicate the issue the 1992 WAC 51-20 eliminated the previous code exception for the 4 inch threshold in B-2 Occupancies and requires in Section 3106 (k) 10 that the seat 11 . shall extend the full depth of the stall . . . " without exception and eliminated all references to ANSI Standard A117 . 1-1986 . FIRE HEADQUARTERS/24611 116th AVE. S.E., KENT,WASHINGTON 98031 /TELEPHONE(206) 859-3322 i FAX�359-3281 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION/220 4th AVE. SO.,/KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 5395 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3360/FAX 4 859-3334 We are in the process of requesting an interpretation from the State Building Code Council regarding the requirement for "a full depth seat" . Upon investigation of our archival records we show that the existing structure, and restrooms, may have been constructed prior to the 1976 state mandated accessibility laws and therefor the provisions of the 1990 WAC 51-10, Section 003 may not be applicable unless the proposed restrooms are new , . . . .construction, substantially remodeled, or substantially rehabilitated. . . . " . While the applicability of the accessibility statutes remains unclear, this office has determined that the existing installation complies with the intent and therefor the installed shower stall may remain. If you have any questions regarding this matter, I may be reached after 3 : 30 PM at 859-3360 . Respectfully, t ck Fingold Assistant Building official cc: R. Hutchinson, Building Official D. Kelleher, Mayor file:FINGOLD\LIQAIR r,EE0 � © EI DEC 10 1592M 6J n OFFICE QF'ti-,� ...•��01� i i"i Y i ;\i_;a i marejo I Contractors Inc. CITY C_ER!: FAX(206)272-9998 (206)272-0383 General Contractors MA- RJ -OC'316L3 December 1 , 1992 Mayor & City Council City of Kent Re : North End Fire Station /Headquarters Fire Station Mar-Jon Contractors Dear Mayor & City Council , It is with ease of mind I can sprite this letter without repercussion from Mr . Norm Angelo and his cohorts . The above referenced projects have finally been finalized and I feel a great responsibility to let you know how this man and his follow- ers use their power . Mar -Jon Contractors have been in business since 1968 and have never had to deal with anyone so unethical and manipulative . On June 30 , 1988 , we bid the North End Fire Station and we were low bidder . I was introduced to Chief Angelo and Chief Bond ( I should have realized there .sere too many chiefs ) . The main reason we decided to bid this project was because we would be working with the Erickson -McGovern Architectural Firm , a reputable , honest and ethical business firm whom . e had the opportunity of working with on other proiects . Our previous experience in working with knowledgeable and honest business people has always resulted in a good working relation- ship and profitable projects . Needless to say Chief Angelo is none of these . His personality is one of vengefullness and he seems to thrive on watching companies succumb under his power . Just to give you an example of hov: Mr . Angelo works , we had started site work on the North End Fire Station . At this time the Headquarter Building came up for bid . The decision was made to bid this project because of the proximity of the two projects . Estimating working on these projects reflected on the bottom line which helped our bid price for the Headquarters Building . Mar- Jon had the low bid on the base . It was at this time Chief Angelo asked me into his office to let me know that he controlled the out come of the contract award of this project . He let it be known he could .chance the results of the bids if he decided to take any of the alternates and the projects would be awarded to another contractor . Chief Angelo took pleasure in flaunting his power , he could take a 2 4 /2 million dollar job and 6EAEq �A © C Y yi 5 2500 Holgate St. Tacoma,Washington 98402 spin it which ever way he wanted . He said I reminded him of his father and decided to give us the job ( Hind site tells me he must have hated his father ) . I believe an investigation on his dealings is in order . The man is very clever and manipulative and that has earned him a reputation "To buck Norm Angelo is Fatal " . Mar-Jon Contractors lost $250 , 000 . 00 on these two jobs . There were 9 subcontractor failures due to the administration by Chief Angelo and his cohorts . His relationship with the architects deteriorated to the point the architects did ' nt have any control of these projects . He immediately brought his army of fire- fighters and building inspectors to run these jobs under his rule . Firefighters should be firefighters and building inspectors should be building inspectors and not project coordinators working under Chief Angelo ' s dictatorship . To give you an idea how these jobs progressed : North End Fire Station : Bid Date : 6 -30 -88 Construction Time : 12 Months Received Retainage : 11 -27-90 Released 17 months after completion of Projects , far exceeds industry standards Headquarters Fire Station : Bid Date : 5 -2 -89 Construction Time : 12 months Received Retainage : 10 -08-92 Released 28 months after completion of project , this also far exceeds industry standard . In my opinion being the head of the Bui - dingDepartment and Fire Chief is in conflict . Erickson -McGovern Architects claim financial loses never before encumbered . Chief Angelo has caused irrevocable damage to the City of Kent . Thank you for taking the time to read this letter . If you would like to discuss this in detail please do not hesitate to contact me . Respectfully , 4/ri Ki t President - Retired R E C E I V E D CTS construction, LTD JAN 0 6 1993 24242 42nd P1 So Kent WA 98032 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 206-941-8074 December 22, 1992 Bob Hutchinson Code Inforcement Kent City Hall Bldg 220 4th Av Kent Wa 90031 Dear Mr. Hutchinson: First let me introduce myself. My name is Chuck Wilson of CTS Construction, I am a resident of the City of Kent and have been living and building in the city for five years . In the past five years of doing business with the City of Kent things have gone quite well, in the area of timeliness of inspections. Lately, since September 1992 , things have slowed down considerably. We now wait up to three ( 3 ) days for some inspections, and have no idea if we get a morning or afternoon inspection. In the building business planning plays a very important role; we depend on sub-contractors , suppliers , and many other people to meet our schedule, which in turn must meet your inspection schedules . At this time we are just trying to determine what must be done to get code improvement to give us timely inspections when we call . Example: The Kent engineering department not only tells you what day they will do their inspection but also the time of day they will do it. Bottom line is we just need to know when we can expect the inspector. Our latest home is now nine days behind because of inspection time . Nine days is not alot of time in a project of this size, but it means inconvenience, additional stress and costs to our buyer in the form of another months rent, interest rates , etc. Our subs cannot met their schedule which is a financial burden to them and it certainly creates additional cost to us , CTS. , not to mention that a man's word should mean something . We are by no means a large builder, we are a family owned and run business , the type that creates the majority of employment in this country. As much as possible , we use suppliers and sub-contractors that also operate in Kent. With each new home that we build another family moves into the city, bringing with them, on the Pg 2 B. Hutchinson December 22 , 1992 average of 60 to 70 thousand dollar a year income, much of which is spent in the city. The following is a list of City of Kent businesses that we have used along with a cost break down of our latest job which started in late September: Henry Bacon $11 ,145 SEA-TAC Roofing 11973 Fire Side 11788 Kent Gympsbn 11652 Herr Cabinets 51800 Familian 180 J.J. Plumbing 3 , 538 G&M Mechanical 3 ,095 Crane Design 900 City of Kent 2 , 513 Coho Supply 1 , 780 These amounts won't make any one rich but they add up. We are obligated to meet all local and state codes and rules which we do. We are intent on building a quality home so we limit ourselves to about four per year. We live in the development that we built and have satisfied customers all around us . We would like to continue to work in the Kent area. Is it possible to set-up appointments such as the engineering department is doing? Please inform us of how this can be made into a workable situation for all . Sincerely, �i 2S C-,3 C. H. Wilson, CEO CHW/tw cc: M. Berg D. Killeher, Mayor .. !i S{ Ai I',r.I IC 1'1 ,'V! I Tb,t AI 66 Pro m t Co. ,s Co. Y G9WNG� Dept. Phone �7 Fix it — ` Fix 0 i4� Z Tot City of Kent Engineering Department Inspection Department (Ron Campbell ) This in a small way is to say thank you for the excellent job performance that I witnessed and experienced during the West Hill Storm Drainaq2 erg1 qc_t. The spirit of cooperation and willingness to listen to a property owners Concerns and considerations was above and beyond what I had anticipated. I personally will always have a good word to say for the Engineering and Inspection department of the City of Kent. Once again I was very pleased with the performance of the contractor and the diligent observation and communications of the inspector on the job. Zi cere y. nt K. Rtad Property Owner 26603 Dover Court Kent, Washington 98032 3= _ January 5, 1993 Mr, Steve Burpee Northwest Corporate Real Estate 1048 W. James, Suite 104 Kent,Washington 98032 Subject. Our Frustrating Move to our New Facility Dear Steve: most upset over the cracy, the As we discussed yesterday on thess and vacillating interpretations of the urules, codes, lack of cooperation, the indect vene etc., as well as the overall negative, non-cooperative, confrontational attitude of the Kent Building Inspection Department. Flow now employs nearly 500 people in the Kent valley; and if someone were to call me today to ask if I would recommend their considering a site in Kent I must say I would say NO! Our new facility is approximately 145,000 square feet, and was planned to allow for 5 years of growth. however, our growth is exceeding our expectations and the building is now full. I am seriously looking at other facilities for expansion rather than here in Kent. The problems all began with the extraordinarily long times required to obtain the permits of with ongoing reinterpretations necessary to construct the building. Then continued includedr example, what in fact was included in those permits. he original us, as well as a QC area The permit was fence from our existing facility o be granted based on the original drawing as submitted. Then we were told we needed a revision to the permit to include those items -- so we did. Then we were told we needed a separate permit -- all taking time, all causing frustration, and all delaying the effectivity of the move. These delays and varying interpretation of codes have cost our company in of ahalf-million dollars ($500,000), necessitating overtime, rework, delays, excess excess estly, I don't know how accurate the half-million is; it additinal expenses, etc. Steve, lion could go well beyond that. I believe that the lack of flexibility, the lack ounderstandinof the codes f wand comprules, ane is trying to accomplish, the continually varying rp e confrontational attitude of the inspectors, and the overall lack of cooperation of the entire inspection department do not promote the growth of industry in the Kent valley. At no time during this process did FIow, its architects or builders have any intention of being unsafe or breaking the rules. All we asked for was a clear understanding of what they were, and for them to stay constant during the process. Steve, I believe this summarizes our position. Should you wish me to talk to anyone, I am sure you could tell by my voice that I am ready. Kent has a lot to offer and could be the next industrial center of the Seattle metropolitan area. But in order to develop, Kent must structure an acceptable method of granting permits and improve the process. It's not like I haven't faced this before -- this is the third building that in my business career I've constructed in the Seattle metropolitan area. While other areas' permit processes may be more difficult, I've never encountered anything like the Kent inspection procedures. Thanks for your understanding, 1Z W. Tarrant President and Chief Executive Officer coels January 11, 1993 C E i V L JARS 13 1993 OFFICE OF THi:;f(tjyGR Mr. Dan Kelleher, Mayor CITY OF KENT 220 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Kelleher: T am writing you this letter to inform you of the ineffectiveness of the Planning and Fire Department's of our city government with respect to the tenant improvement permit process. Our main problem to this point has primarily been with not being able to have access to these people when they have told us that they would be available. The tenant applying for the permit, Jerry Downer, Evergreen Sign Company, has been doing business in the City of Kent for years and now is forced to expand his facility. We have been trying to work through the city permit process and have made very little headway during the last 6 weeks despite our efforts to meet with city officials. We are now afraid that the building owner will be forced to lease the facility to another tenant because he cannot afford to be losing any more rent waiting for the city to approve the plans. The tenant has spent thousands of dollars in architectural and engineering fees in an effort to satisfy the city and now it looks as if his money will have been wasted unless something can be achieved within the week. Any assistance that you can offer will be greatly appreciated and I hope some measures can be taken to insure that this type of non-responsive, non-productive behavior does not become the normal way of doing business at the City of Kent. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, THE ANDOVER COMPANY R. Scott Rice RSR:llb/0111gdk THE ANDOVER COMPANY (206)244-0770 CORPORATE REAL ESTATE FAX(206)246-9229 415 Baker Boulevard•Suite 200•Tukwda,Washington 98188 01%12%93 08:40 IV_UG 813 1511 FLOW IST' L CORP Q oUl:0o1 F Ronald W. Tarrant a� 3 ?res cent Cnki Exac:u:rvc Oitc r ,Nre uNnTCnai. r.O .o January 11, 1993 Mr. Steve Burpee Northwest Corporate Real Estate 1048 W. James, Suite 104 Kent, Washington 98032 Reference: Our phone call today Dear Steve: As I indicated in our conversation today, the saga continues. Even though the original plans and specs were approved and in early December we received a certificate of occupancy with no conditions, Harry Hardy, building inspector for the City of Kent, continues to change requirements and code/regulation interpretations. Now he has decided we need a weld inspection on our carrousel, which is already fully assembled, fully loaded with materials and operational. At no time has this ever been brought up during the construction of the carrousel, when it would have been easy to perform the inspection. Now, it literally takes us out of business for a day and costs us additional loading and unloading labor, and out of service time. In addition to that, we have eight other new requests that are changes in Mr. Hardy's plans or in his interpretation of what we need to do. This goes all the way down to racking that companies put up and take down daily to accommodate immediate requirements within their facilities -- in no way are they part of the permit construction nor do they require a building permit, and in no way are they unsafe. So, as 1 indicated, Steve, we continue to encounter ongoing, time-consuming processes to accommodate the City of Kent -- all which could have and should have taken place in the original review of the plans and the original meetings with the developers, the builders and us. This would have made the whole process much simpler for everyone -- and undoubtedly would have significantly reduced Mr. Hardy's work load. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Best reg s, R. W. Tarrant cos? 21440 e8m Avenje South Kunt,%'lashlroloe 9803' Phone 2061672.4400 c,. 7In&T7P-3?yC The Kent Chamber evaluated Chief Angelo' s latest proposal and felt that it lacks specificity, and focuses on establishing future reasons for not being able to solve the problems or meet certain goals . The focus is on a 10-day timeline for permits, which should be the outcome of the permit process, not its main goal . Customer service and satisfaction of those served must be paramount to the process . This in no way suggests that safety and public protection should be of less importance or ignored in any fashion. A clear understanding of the requirements, respect and kindness, good communications, and predictability of requests made by the staff must be part of the process . We have been involved since January 1991, when we wrote to the City outlining the problem and request a joint effort to solve it . The problem has continued unabated since that time, and some feel has grown worse, as evidenced by the enclosed letter from Flow International and the survey response from Heath Tecna . Thank you for your consideration and cooperation . We believe that the Chamber and the City share the same concerns and hopes for our community . We request that you have the fortitude to make this difficult decision for the best outcome for Kent . Sincerelyy�, A Howard King to hen J.EBur Vice President ent President President- lect Commerce and Industry Council cc : Mayor Kelleher Judy Woods, Council President Christi Houser Paul Mann Jim White CITY OF 11�,L � Dan Kelleher, Mayor Norman G. Angelo, Fire Chief January 14, 1993 Mr. John Naylor Western Distribution 22615 64th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear John: Thank you for the letters you forwarded from Flow, Mar-Jon and G.C. Finn Construction. I appreciate the ongoing professional relationship we have maintained. I have asked staff for additional information regarding the concerns expressed by Flow. With respect to the two other letters, it is the first that I have ever seen of these letters. I will not bring myself to an undignified level of getting involved in personal attacks. While this is not the first time that either had tried to bait me into an unprofessional approach, I have never personally attacked them or their people. I have refused, as an owner, to accept incomplete work or intimidation from either of these contractors . We acted appropriately and within the contracts. I checked with the architect referred to in the Mar-Jon letter. He is prepared to talk with you, the Council and others that my and our personnel's behavior was never unethical or vengeful. We were professionally insistent that all the contractors meet their responsibilities as agreed to under the contract. I insisted that the public's interests and rights not be compromised. We not only operated appropriately within the bounds of the contract, we also demonstrated extreme patience with corrections of many significant deficiencies in workmanship and incomplete compliance with the contract. I do not know of owners who would have accepted these significant deficiencies. We did work to develop and implement acceptable solutions where problems did not provide significant compromise to the projects. In the case of the City project, City Administration, the Legal Department and Council members have physically reviewed the conditions that caused us to delay acceptance of the project. I have not, to this date, been told by one of these people that our concerns were inappropriate or that the projects should have been accepted under these conditions. FIRE HEADQUARTERS/24611 116th AVE. S.E., KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 /TELEPHONE (206) 859-33221 FAX#859-3281 CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 1 220 4th AVE.SO.,/KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206) 859-3360/FAX #859-3334 Letter to John Naylor January 14, 1993 Page 2 Under the fiscal and contractual constraints placed on us, staff and myself behaved in a professional and honest manner in dealing with both of these situations. This was true even when we were misled and treated inappropriately. We do have detailed documentation that I would be glad to share with yourself, the Chamber, Council and the public. Additionally, the people in Code Enforcement were told not to show any special favor or make special requirements because it was a City job. They received no pressure from me, nor was there ever a conflict of interest in favor of the City or the contractors. I have never in my career used my role or authority as a firefighter or an officer (at any rank) to push around people, give or take special favors. Nor have I seen my staff behave in such a manner. I can cite many examples that validate our professional behavior during these projects. However, let me just make reference to two situations that you will be able to quickly validate. The first is the several interactions I have had with yourself and others such as Don McDaniels. We have been upfront, professional, open to listening and finding solutions. We have not changed. More specifically to the allegations in the Mar-Jon letter. I not only do not have the authority or ability to manipulate the Bid, I have no authority to award the bid. Bids come in a sealed envelope and are/were independently opened and recorded by the City Clerk. This includes all the alternates. I had no previous knowledge of the figures and once they are opened, they are a part of the public record. I have attached for your review a copy of the original summary of those bids that were sent to Council. There was no way for me or anyone to take the basic bid and alternates in any combination to manipulate the bids. The alternates accepted or rejected would have to apply equally to all bidders. All information must be presented to and award voted on by Council. Myself and our staff took pains taking effort in every bid to insure fairness and avoid any prejudice toward any bidder. I have looked at the numbers and invite you or anyone else to work various combinations of the numbers. There was no power play, flaunting or intimidations of any bidder by ourselves. If you wish to review any documentation or any specifics, we would be glad to share them with you. This applies to a multitude of other issues and documentation that I would be glad to share with you. With respect to the G. C. Finn letter, there were never hidden agendas on my staff or the District's part. My people have not been coerced or intimidated and are willing to testify any place or any time under oath. Letter to John Naylor January 14 , 1993 Page 3 We did repeatedly receive . threats and intimidations. We, at all times remained professional and objective on issues even in the face of incomplete information. We provided documentation, accepted alternative solutions, but refused to accept responsibility for incomplete, inappropriate work. We have heard from several subcontractors how they were inappropriately treated by the general contractor. The Fire Commissioners, two attorneys and other professionals have full knowledge of the circumstances and could portray a more factual picture that would strongly disprove the comments in the G.C. Finn letter. Again, there is significant detailed documentation available. Also, there are multiple checks, balances and facts that would prove that the accusations of me and my staff are unfounded and are an attempt to justify their inappropriate behavior. I resisted being dictated to, or intimidated by these contractors. It is my duty to watch out for the public interest. My behavior and that of my staff was never unprofessional, manipulatory or inappropriate. We operated within the scope of the contract where benefit of the doubt was given to the contractor where it was legitimate. I was obligated to inform the Commissioners of Fire District #37 of the accusations since their project was implicated. Several people including sub- contractors, attorneys, Commissioners, and architects are willing to provide additional facts. The mis-statements and personal attack, in my opinion, are aimed at getting off the relevant issues that you and I share genuine interest in - possible approaches to improvements to the Permit Process . There is no conflict between my role as Fire chief and having the Building Department within our organization. To the contrary, there are many positive reasons why they should be together. With respect to our willingness to work with people, clarify issues and/or develop alternate solutions, I believe you have first hand knowledge of examples of where we have continued to do that. I will review the letter from Flow Industries you have shared with me and try to fully understand the circumstances. As I stated to you, I would be glad to meet with you and the Chamber committee to discuss more specifics on either approach and to consider how we might find a common approach. I have previously committed to you and others that we will remain positive, stay on the issues and off the personalities. Even if we happen to end up with different recommended approaches to the Planning Committee, we will support and carry out the Mayor and Council's final decision in a positive and cooperative manner. While I believe there are important advantages and safeguards in our proposal, I will open mindedly take your suggestions to re-visit the Advisory Committee's recommendation that the Chamber favors at this time. Letter to John Naylor January 14 , 1993 Page 4 I encourage you to share my comments with those on the Chamber Committee who receive the two previous letters. Sincerely, Norman G. Angelo Fire Chief Kent Fire Department 24611 116th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98031 (206) 859-3322 kj cc: Mayor Dan Kelleher City Council Members January 14, 1993 TO : Leona Orr, Planning Committee Chair Jim Bennett, Council Member Jon Johnson, Council Member FROM: Kent Chamber of Commerce RE : Permit Process Dear Leona : The Kent Chamber of Commerce requests that the Planning Committee forward to the full council at their earliest convenience, a recommendation to adopt in full the proposal and recommendations from the Mayor' s Advisory Committee on the Permit Process, including the plan for implementation of the needed reorganization . We strongly feel that it is necessary to make these organizational changes within the City to protect the economic health of our community . As you know, the permit process is the channel through which job-and revenue-producing businesses relocate to and expand in Kent . Efficiency and customer satisfaction in the permit process is often the determining factor for companies considering doing business in Kent . Without ,these jobs, Kent' s quality of life is threatened, as well as the ability of the City of Kent to provide services to its citizens, since the business community pays 80 per cent of the City' s revenue base . We include a copy of two letters from Ron Tarrant, CEO of Flow International, which typifies problems facing the Kent business community . When major companies such as Flow and Heath Tecna perceive permitting and inspections in such a negative light, and this is communicated to the business community at large, not only will we fail to attract new jobs, we will lose those we benefit from now . We therefore feel a change in the process is essential to solve the problem. It will take years to overcome the impact of this situation should you allow it to cont_nue or worsen . Robert W. Kitto 515 W. Harrison, Suite 101 P .O. Box 1144 Kent, WA 98035 January 19 , 1993 Mayor, City of Kent Council Members, City of Kent Kent City Hall Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mayor and Council Members : I have been a Fire District No. 37 Commissioner for the past five and one-half years . The Commissioners were provided with a copy of letter dated September 4, 1992 from G.C. Finn Construction Co. Because I have been closely involved with the station project in question ever since I was appointed to the Commission, I wanted to give you my observations . I intend to be speaking only for myself, and not for the Commission itself, although I feel pretty confident that the other commissioners would agree with my observations . For five and one-half years I have observed Chief Angelo interact with his employees . There is no question but that he is the person in charge of the Department. He however delegates tasks to his people and allows them to perform. He is always ready to compliment his people for a job well done. I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that he either intimidates or embarrasses his employees . Instead, the Department appears to be a closely knit one with happy employees . Chris Martin was present at almost every one of our monthly meetings during my first five years on the Commission. Mr. Finn' s observations that Chris was intimidated by Chief Angelo would be completely contrary to anything I have observed over that five year period. I don't understand Mr. Finn's complaints about the contract. The supplemental conditions he refers to were written by the District's attorney at his own insistence. Mr. Finn obviously accepted those conditions , even after consulting with his own attorney. There is nothing in those conditions which appears to be unfair. Mr. Finn ran into difficulties with the commissioners because the commissioners were unwilling to accept the quality of some of his work and were unwilling to pay certain costs which he felt he was entitled to . We met month after month going over individual construction items which were deemed to be unsatisfactory, trying to decide which ones we could live with and which ones we could not live with. We instructed Chief Angelo and Chris Martin on what we would agree to in order to finalize the contract. They continually kept us updated on negotiations with the contractor. When legal action finally became eminent, we directed Chief Angelo to hire an attorney to represent the District . After months of negotiations, all matters were finally settled. The final settlement represented a compromise on many items which I believe we were entitled to under the terms of the contract. In summary, the administration of this contract was not one which I would like to go through again either. However, I believe that the Kent Fire Department personnel are to be complimented on the manner in which they managed this project. Sinc rely, ROBERT W. KITTO RWKss y . � . IONMST January 21, 1993 To whom it may concern Please let it be known that the undersigned has had an amicable relationship with the City of Kent inspectors at Dover Place. They have been fair and relatively consistent in their inspections. They have been helpful and cooperative in meeting our scheduling needs. In closing, I feel that the current situation with regards to inspections and inspectors is working fine. Sincerely, Barry Ediss Dover Place Project Manager P0. ROY 208 KIRK ANn lVA MOM I PH 0- 1/ i PC, NAWARr D BAN 2 :� 199111 BIRTCHER 111'1z VI: VNI, January 21, 1993 Mr. Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Wickstrom: On behalf of Birtcher Frank Properties, I would like to personally thank you, Mr. Harry Schutts and your staff, and in particular Tom Tazuma, for your cooperation in working with Birtcher Frank Properties in securing necessary building permits and on-site inspections for the Augat Communications Group and Flow International Corporation Build-to-Suit buildings. As you may be aware the improvements for the buildings contemplated a whole range of issues including wetland mitigation, off-site improvements and off-site stormwater detention and bio- filtration. In achieving a resolution to each issue to the mutual satisfaction of the City of Kent and Birtcher Frank Properties, the City of Kent was cooperative and consistent in achieving a win- win solution. Most of those issues were also substantially complex and required a broad evaluation of competing objectives. In the final analysis, the City of Kent and Birtcher Frank Properties cooperatively reached mutually agreeable solutions which translated into a successful development project which was delivered on-schedule to the needs of both of these Build-to- Suit client's. In short, without the cooperation by the City of Kent it would have been virtually impossible for Birtcher Frank Proper-ties to deliver these buildings on-schedule which was absolutely critical to the business relocation needs of both client's. Page 2 In closing, I want to personally thank you, Tom Tazuma and the rest of your staff for your commitment and cooperation in our achieving the necessary permits for these building projects. Van Doren's Landing has a very bright business future, in large part due to the positive working relationship we enjoy with the City of Kent. Si ly, Dan Ivanoff Vice President of Marketing DI:da cc: Mr. Tom Tazuma Mr. Harry Schutts BIRTCHER :.V , January 21, 1993 Mr. Norm Angelo, Fire Chief City of Kent Fire Department 400 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Angelo: On behalf of Birtcher Frank Properties I would like to express my thanks to yourself and your staff for your contributions to the on-schedule delivery of the Flow International Corporation and Augat Communications Group Build-to-Suit buildings. In particular, I would like to pay special recognition to Mr. Mike Evans and Mr. Bruce Verhei, for their consistent, continued cooperation in helping Birtcher Frank Properties secure necessary building permits and on-site inspections. In the case of both individuals, without their ongoing cooperation, we would not have delivered these buildings on-schedule which was absolutely critical to both tenants relocation requirements. In a number of cases, negotiations were required between the City of Kent and Birtcher Frank Properties to reach mutually acceptable win-win solutions to a variety of permitting issues. In retrospect, the City of Kent was consistent, cooperative and committed to helping us achieve those critical permits. In closing, the business outlook for Van Doren's Landing is very positive largely due to the positive working relationship we enjoy with the City of Kent planning, building, fire and public works departments staff and department leaders. Sincerely, Dan Ivanoff Vice President of Marketing DI:da cc: Mr. Mike Evans Mr. Bruce Verhei BIRTCHER = '-;' '�! FRANK I'12t 11'.:i:'i it{c .a. .•.cr� ^n^n' •,'i January 21, 1993 Mr. Bob Hutchinson, Building Official Code Enforcement City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Hutchinson: I have written you this letter to express on behalf of Birtcher Frank Properties, our gratitude for the cooperation your department provided us in delivering the Augat Communications Group and Flow International Corporation Build-to-Suit buildings on-schedule. As you may be aware, we worked very closely with Mr. Jack Fingold on both buildings for the shell building permits and Ms. Kathi Korth on the Flow International tenant improvement permit as well as Ms. Mary Kate Gaviglio on the Augat Communications Group tenant improvement permit and Mr. Harry Harding on inspections of both buildings. Without the continued cooperation of these individuals, it would have been virtually impossible to meet our delivery dates which were absolutely critical to the relocation requirements of both tenants. While there were complex issues to resolve in the course of the permitting process, your people demonstrated flexibility, cooperation and consistency in helping Birtcher Frank Properties secure critical building permits. I have nothing but the highest expectations of future success at Van Doren's Landing, in a large part due to the cooperative working relationship we enjoy with the City of Kent. In closing, again I would like to commend yourself and your staff on the hard work and commitment in assisting Birtcher Frank Properties achieve critical milestones in the delivery of these two Build-to-Suit buildings. I look forward to working with you on future projects. Sincerely, Dan Ivanoff Vice President of Marketing DI:da cc: Ms. Kathi Korth Ms. Mary Kate Gaviglio Mr. Harry Harding CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS 20206 72Nn AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 (206) 575-8787 January 25, 1993 Mr. Don Wickstrom Engineering CITY OF KENT 220 S. 4th Avenue Kent, WA 98032-5595 SUBJECT: HARRY SHUTTS PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR Dear Don: Corporate Property Investors has, over the past eight years, developed approximately 2,000,000 square feet of institutional grade industrial and commercial properties within the City of Kent. The working relationship we have enjoyed throughout this period with Harry Shutts and the Public Works Department has been exemplary and conducted within the highest professional standards. Harry in particular has been of immense assistance to Corporate Property Investors, not only in the resolution of construction problems, but in anticipating difficulties and where possible, suggesting alternates that serve the best interest of both the City of Kent and ourselves. Harry's integrity is above reproach and his commitment to performance excellence in the field is to be applauded. We have at all times found Harry to be reasonable in the administration of his duties, yet firm in interpretation, particularly as respects the interests of the City of Kent. We look forward to a continuation of our excellent working relationship with Harry in his present position and are hopeful that the City of Kent will concur. Thank you for considering our comments on arry's performance. Kindel reg / ack R. nrl JRB:ng CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS is the designation of the Trustees under a Declaration of Trust, as amended and restated, on file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and neither the shareholders nor the Trustees, officers, employees or agents of the Trust created thereby, nor any of their personal assets, shall be liable hereunder, and all persons dealing with the Trust shall look solely to the Trust estate for the payment of any claims hereunder or 'or the performance hereof. Universal 1 JAN 2 199 � Land SINCE 1962 �TIL- Q�UINEERINU DEI CLEARING ;()NSTRUCTIO' COrAl A'V /47.1F�T`�e1 P.O. BO, 32 - 20306 144TH A`.'E. I ,t ,( D VI LE, WA 98072 ��GRADING STREETS F HONE (2061 483-6:'00 ' A;( 2^E '-� ��3 86 UNIV'1_C 9FL January 25, 1993 Mr. Jim Ausburn City of Kent Engineering Dept. 220 - 4th Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Jim: It was a pleasure working with you on the recent Westview Terrace Sanitary Sewer project. Your cooperative attitude and desire to "get the job done" was much appreciated by our Superintendent, Stu Bold, and by our crew. Our company prides itself on being able to deliver a project to the owner under budget and ahead of schedule, while at the same time adhering to the high construction standards that you and your employer insist upon. It' s so much easier to reach our goal when the project inspector is experienced and competent. Jim, you are a fine representative for the City of Kent and we commend you for your diligence and hard work. We look forward to bidding more City of Kent work. Yours very truly, UNIVERSAL/LAND CONSTRUCTION CO. LC-T Steve Legg Secretary/Treasurer SL/kb ROBISON CONSTRUCTION INC. General Contractors & Engineers January 25, 1993 City of Kent Public Works Department 220 4th Ave. S . Kent, WA 98032 Attn: Mr. Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Wickstrom, As you are aware we have just finished the fifth consecutive project within the City in the past three years . On behalf of RCI and our sub-contractors, we want to thank the Kent Engineering and Inspection Department Staffs for their professionalism and common sense approach to construction methods and required project revisions. Specific individuals who deserve special commendation are Harry Shutts and Van Parker(Inspection) and Stan Wade, Tom Tazuma, and Dean Falkner(Engineering) . It has been a pleasure working with a Municipality staffed by experienced professionals with a strong technical and in-field background. We look forward to working with the City of Kent again in the future. Sincer Y. Andrew C. Albrecht, Project Manager Robison Construction, Inc . I PO Box 5789 Kent,WA 98C64 2C6.852.4254 ax 2r 159.5702 I Contractor Lic.ROBI SC'22386 MB E/DBE D4M07C0986 ��,.I MEMBER OF U7.1LITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION•"'NE DIG AMERICA" l; V active construction . Inc. January 26, 1993 Mr. Timothy J.LaPorte Engineering Supervisor City of Kent, Engineering Division 220 4th Ave So. Kent, Washington 98032-5895 VIA FAX• (2061859-3559 RE: CITY OF KENT--L.I.D. 335—77th AVE. S,, STREET IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. LaPorte: I would like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of Mr. Ron Campbell, Construction Inspector for the City of Kent. It is always a pleasure to work with a professional like Ron. Inspections were strict but fair, and the methods did not vacillate. The Engineering Department was instrumental in the quick resolution of problems or conflicts as they arose on the job. We appreciate the assistance Ron provided in promoting a good working relationship with the property owners on this contract. Active Construction was fortunate to have such a professional to work with and we look forward to bidding more work in the City of Kent. Sincerely, ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC. �r R.A. Matthews Project Superintendent i52 11.0. Box 191 Gig Harbor,Washington 98335 206 851.4696 FAX(20b) 8: AC-Tf-VC-1.164JL POLYGON "Al NORTHWEST COMPANY January 27, 1993 Mr.Don Wickstrom Director of Public Works City of Kent Engineering Department 220-4th Ave.So. Kent,WA 98032 Re: Regatta Townhomes (Meridian Green Phase II) Kent Kangley Road at 114th Ave. Dear Mr.Wickstrom: The above referenced project is one of our most successful projects and we just completed our last sale. During the construction of the project the City of Kent Public Works Department staff was involved with a number of requests made by our company that related to requirements and procedures to complete this project. These ranged from phasing of bonding releases and mitigation payments to working with easements and setbacks. Thanks to the efforts of the City of Kent Public Works Department staff,we were able to resolve all of these requests in a timely manner with solutions that were creative,fair and equitable for both the City and our company. This enabled us to meet our schedules and produce affordable housing for our purchasers. We work in many jurisdictions and sincerely appreciate the commitment of your staff to help meet the needs of the building community. They are doing an outstanding job. The people in the office most actively involved with our project were Tom Tazuma,Stan Wade, Carol Storm,Gary Gill,Theresa Baim,Jerry McCann,Van Parker,Jan Benson and Barbara Meskimen. There are others in the field and office who were involved that should also be commended for their efforts. I don't want to leave you with the impression that the City is getting soft. To the contrary, many of the policies which staff must implement are difficult. We are pleased to have the opportunity to participate on the Construction Standards Committee which is revising these policies. It is the cooperation and effort made by all concerned that is appreciated. We look forward to our next project. Very truly yours, c� Ga4Aoung Senior Vice President GAY:vs 4040 Lake Washington Blvd Nr',Suite 201, Kirkland,WA 99033 (206)32227700 FAX(206)827-IMS Genie Contract Group inc. 14785 Drcatca Road 8ultc 1I4 Debt, Tcxea 75UO . 114-566-6117 Tciccopla 414490-1607 January 27 , 1993 Mr . Don Wickstrom FacQ; m; � e No (206) 8s4-�55� Director of Public Works City of Kent 220 4th Avenue Sol?th Kent , Washington 98032-5895 RE : ,a;anature POillte Apa ' m -na Gentlemen, As you are aware, we are in the process of working the punch-list for our maintainance bond on the Signature Point- Apartments . This will finally complete the lengthy developmeL program we began in 1989 . i wanted to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the City staff for your help and efforts in our behalf in bringing this project to a successful conclusion. As you are aware, this project was plagued with a myriad of problems from its inception--illegal aliens , mis-graded v�umber, broke subcontractors , fraud perpetuated by our contractor, etc . , etc . , etc . --we could go on with an endless list , In spite of all these obstacles , the entire staff for the City of 1Ze:1t • were diligent in insuring that quality was obtained . Ilad yc�u not put forth those extra efforts project in o that ur teWel now ehaveila not be able to have the quality sense of pride in . Again, let me express our appreciation to the City of Kent for your cooperation, your diligence, your tireless efforts and your unwavering commitment to help us in building a first-class 467 GL*IIS CONTRACT GROUP INC. Mr , Don Wickstrom January 27 , 1993 Wage 2 addition to your community. The property would not be the success it is today without your help under those difficult circumstances , B ds ert ?Agilt y Autho ized for Signature Pointe Limited Parternership cc , Mr . Rmpbell Engineering Department 467 Ronald W. Tarrant FUDW President Chiei Executive Officer 1 N T E R NATION AL C O R P O R A T I O N January 27, 1993 Leona Orr Planning Committee Chair PO Box 128 Kent, Washington 98035 Subject: Permit Process/City of Kent Dear Ms. Orr: As you are undoubtedly aware, I have communicated by two letters to the Kent Chamber of Commerce concerning our dissatisfaction with the permit process encountered during the construction and the move into our new facility here on 64th Avenue South in Kent. Based on the fact that Flow has been a long-time tenant in the city, we were most distressed by the fact that we encountered the difficulties outlined in those letters. Subsequent to those letters we have had a visit from several officials of the city, including the fire chief, assistant chief, inspection and planning departments. We discussed the issues at great length; and listened to the city's reaction to our letters, reviewed their reports and records and considered their indicated actions and cause analysis. After reflecting upon our meeting with the officials and thinking about our situation, I believe the best thing I could do at this point is simply summarize our position and our analysis of the situation. We believe that in the initial stages of the permitting process the city works very well. As the process continues, the city lacks the staff, organization, background, and experience to adequately follow in an organized fashion the permitting/inspection processes to facilitate an easy and flexible conclusion to the building process. We believe that some new ideas and some fresh approaches, especially in the arena of commercial building construction could possibly assist the city in facilitating a smoother transition from the permit to the final satisfied occupancy. I hope these comments, however general, are helpful. I believe that the people attending our meeting were very interested,not only in defending their position and procedures, but 23500 64th Avenue South Kent. Washington 96032 Phone: 206/850-3500 Fax: 206/813-3311 also interested in considering our suggestions regarding methods of improving the processes. I would suggest that the city appoint an independent task force to further pursue the investigation of these issues and make unbiased and constructive recommendations regarding methods to better service potential companies moving to Kent, while still maintaining an adequate work level and a quality inspection procedure. Thank you for your time. I hope this concludes our portion of the matter. R. W. Tarrant President and Chief Executive Officer cow JAMES A. GUESS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION - BACKHOE SERVICE 28020 20 1 ST AVENUE S.E., KENT, WASHINGrON 98042 LICENSE #223-01 JA-ME-SA G232 QS TELEPHONE INSURED 631-3624 BONDED February 1 , 1993 Chris Martin Kent Fire Dept . 24611 116th Ave . S . E . Kent , WA 98031 Dear Chris : In regards to the watermain extension project our company completed for King County Fire Protection District #37 , I would like to commend you , as project coordinatcr , and Norm Angelo , Fire Chief , for the fine and competant working relationship we had doing this project . It is our philosophy that a good rapport between the contractor and owner is very beneficial to both sides in getting the best job done . And this rapport was made up of your and Norm Angelo ' s good leadership and timely judgement decisions on the project . A confused and antagonistic atmosphere existed between the General Contractor and the subs cn this project . But your leadership made our part of the project , installing the watermain , proceed and be completed according to the schedule . Thank you for a job well done . We look forward in the future to working again with you both , on another watermain or sewer project for the Kent Fire Dept . Best rf�g rds , dli: Guess JAG/blg ALL NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION & LANDSCAPING iL 21433 - 174th Avenue S.E. Renton, Washington 98055 • (206) 226V 432-8466 Fire District #37 Commissioners 24611 116 Av SE Kent, Wa. 98031 Gentlemen: Recently I reviewed a letter written by Greg Finn of G. C. Finn Construction pertaining to Chief Angelo of Fire District #37 . Some statements in that letter perturb me greatly and since I too was involved in the Covington Project, I feel it only fair to share my observations of what occured. Our firm had a contract with Mr. Finn to supply all landscaping and irrigation. Like Mr. Finn, I too did not have an enjoyable experience on this project. But I want to make one thing very clear at this time; if it hadn ' t been for the work of the Fire District, the Architects , and in particular Chris Martin , my experience would have been much worse. We had never subcontracted to G. C. Finn Construction in the past so I was tentative in signing the contract with them. What bother- ed me most was the disparity in his bid from the other bids of General Contractors , especially for this size project. Most sub- contractors and suppliers will furnish bids to all General Contract- ors bidding to ensure being aboard the project. This means most differences in bid prices are due to the General Contractors ' estimates for their work, overhead, profit , and overall length of the project. Mr. Finn termed the difference "aggressive bidding" , but with such a large difference , I think the real explanation here is error -- underestimating and not understanding time, materials , and the complexities of the project. Now what concerned me most was that when the General Contractor has made an error, he has two methods of recovering his losses . These are wholly inflated change orders and saueezing the subcontractors and suppliers . Both tactics were employed here . While installing the irrigation system, our pressure test of the incoming water line showed pressure extremely high, which would have caused premature failure of all components of the system. We immediately informed G. C. Finn Construction and Fire District #37 , asking for a change order to install a pressure reducer valve. The District agreed the item was necessary and asked for a price. We submitted a price to G. C. Finn Construction of approximately $350 . 00 . The price submitted to Fire District #37 was more than double that, with the difference being explained as supervision Fire District #37 -2- February 1, 1993 costs . Knowing the valve and fittings were the significant part of our cost, not the labor, and keeping in mind Larry Jackowski could not identify a pressure reducer valve from a vacuum breaker , the role of supervision in the cost structure becomes suspect. Chris Martin felt the same way and our change order was denied. We knew we couldn' t install the system without it , due to warranty problems , so due to G. C. Finn ' s greed, we had to install the valve at our loss. Mr. Finn likes to refer to "fair, equitable, and reasonable" , but I fail to see the corelation here. An important thing to keep in mind when dealing with Mr. Finn is his bullying and intimidating style. I strongly suspect that his objection to Chief Angelo is due to the fact that the man would not respond to these tactics as Mr. Finn would have liked. It is most interesting to see Mr. Finn accuse Chief Angelo and his team of the same tactics. The following is a good example of how far and to what extreme Mr. Finn will go with this line of attack. By mid-May, 1990 , all our our work had been completed and accepted. (see letter) The weekend of June 6 , 1990 , plants were dug up and stolen from the site. Mr. Finn asked us to replace the material at our loss. I informed Mr. Finn since the material was installed and accepted, I was not responsible and per contract the responsibil- ity was entirely his . The general contract specifically required him to have insurance for this. The policy carried a one-thousand-dollar deductible for which he was responsible. For Mr. Finn , it would be much more profitable to force the subcontractor into replacing the material for free. From our experiences with him, I advised him we would perform no work without a work order from him. He then re- quested we perform the work without the document and "we could decide responsibility a later date" . Knowing his intentions are not always straight forward, I declined. The debate continued for months . Note Mr. Finn ' s letter of July 25 , 1990 . In it he says that work was not completed until July 12 , 1990 nor paymemt made. Yet our firm was clearly paid by our May invoice and in Mr. Finn' s letter to the Chamber of Commerce he states the entire project was completed by the first week of June. Mr. Finn' s letter of September 10 , 1990 is truly remarkable. In this letter he states he is exercising his right to takeover our contract due to our failure to replace the plants . Regardless of whom is responsible for replacing the plant material , this letter certainly damages Mr. Finn' s claim of honesty, fairness , and integrity. At no time was any work performed by G. C. Finn Construction on our behalf. To date the mystery "bond" Mr. Finn purchased around our notice of claim has yet to surface. We could find no public record of it, Mr. Finn has not produced a copy for us , and our full retainage was paid by G. C. Finn Construction. In any construction project, the key to progressing on schedule and in reaching mutually acceptable decisions is good, basic problem- solving skills and strong interpersonal skills . The lack of both by Mr. Finn and his superintendent became apparent early on. Perhaps their lack of experience with projects of this size and Fire District #37 -3- February 1, 1993 complexity is the explanation for this . In my twelve years as an owner in this industry, I have never experienced any thing quite like it. Scheduling was a complete nightmare , the cart was contin- ually in front of the horse and things were never as they were represented to be. We had difficulty getting correct and honest answers from G. C. Finn Construction, so eventually we gave up and made all inquiries directly to Chris Martin or the Architects . Our rapport with them was superb. Decisions seemed to be made quickly and we found mutually acceptable agreements could be made easily. We were nearing completion of our work when it became apparent we could not find anywhere the specified ground cover for the project. To save time , I immediately contacted the landscape architect. We quickly agreed on a substitute item over the phone , with written correspondence to follow. Due to budget restraints , we both agreed to use less of the substitute item since its unit cost was greater. Therefore, we could make the substitution with zero cost impact and no loss of time; very acceptable for both parties . I then informed the Project Superintendent of the problem and the solution. To my surprise, he was absolutely livid. When I asked what the problem was , he explained that he wanted to charge for a change order for things like this . Later he approached the Architect about a possible change order request but of course was denied. At that point, we were told by Larry we could have no contact with the Architects or the Fire District; all contact was to be strictly through G. C. Finn Construction. Now if your goal is problem solv- ing, why would you restrict the input and communication channels . All subcontractors were barred from weekly meetings with the District and Architects . What better opportunity to work out problems and prevent future problems before they happen . Later I found out why. I happened to be reading a copy of the minutes for the past meeting and in context was a dialog of Larry blaming progress and short- comings on the subcontractors and the District, but no fault of G. C. Finn Construction. There was a specific quote attributed directly from Larry stating my firm was moving extremely slow and would be holding up the Project. This was at a time when we were leaving the Project due to G. C. Finn having no areas available and prepared for us. (See letter) . I immediately confronted Larry with the statement, he profusely denied making it, yet these are documented minutes. If this was a weekly occurrence , I could under- stand why no subcontractors were allowed in the meetings . I can also understand why the Project hit so many snags and progressed so slowly. Fire District tt37 -4- February 1, 1993 I hope my letter will cause you to rethink the claims and accusations of Mr. Finn. Upon further investigation, I think you will find his claims to be without merit and solely for revenge and self gratification. Sincerely, Q Michael L. Baerny Owner Gordon M. Baerny Owner 921 NORTH CENTRAL KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 (206)852-0300 FURNITURE 10 February 1993 Mr . Steve Burpee Kent Chamber of Commerce Box 128 Kent , WA 98035-0128 Dear Steve , In January I had a first class tenant for our new building on No . Central . I was looking at a start up three year lease with a couple of five year options . My tenant went to the City to inquire about the length of time for a build- ing permit for the tenant improvements . It was stated that it would take a minimum of twenty working days to receive this permit . The tenant decided to go elsewhere . I also asked Norm Angelo about speeding up the process and lie more or less said that was the way it is and the way it is going to stay. I was also forced into paying for raising a fire hydrant in front of our store that has been there for years and did not serve the new building any more than the fire hydrant that is on the property of the new building . I would not receive the occupancy permit unless I folded in to this demand . The City also wanted me to raise the sewer manhole at the same time and I said that I would not do that and then they said if I raise the fire hydrant they would forget the manhole cover . The cost of raising the fire hydrant was five hundred dollars . In my opinion those items belong to every property owner and if installed incorrectly by the City in the first place it should then be corrected by the City and not put on a new building owner in the form of blackmail and tied to the occupancy permit . Should you want to discuss this with me you can reach me at Vans Furniture . S ncere, y, Wall, Petersen Rick Morrison 2816 p SE AuburnI NA 98002 (206) 804-0537 Fobruary TO WHOM IT MAY CO�CERN: I worked as an elcctrical contructcr on �h� remo�el �F Ke�t Firc Stat�on 71 and also �elpe� xi�Ih some repair work on the Kect Fir� Department Training Center , 01 esa occ ns , I had t�o privilege of working wi �� Fire eF Norman �nge�o. 1: L was �r:ly a plceasure working with him and �is s�afF . quite pro sm. He and ru� were one of the very best tcams t!�at � have ever worka6 ' , They were very c1ear �n outlicinq ��e work that ha� Lo be doo� and precise in their instructiuns ;or such work. Each wee!� r Ch�ef Angelo would hold a meeting to dzscuss the prugress o t�e jobs These were Fes pcm: 1)elP:FLIT and appreciated . i1is atte^ tion to details and coreful supervision of these project� resu'�ted in � acilities for t�a �ir� Department t�at ure o � extr^ mely high quality. I constanLly use him as an sxau�le of how construcLion projects can ba run �fficiently. IL is very evident that Chief Pal gel0 Lakes great pride in tho work he accamplishes. I look forwar working wiOil him a:d t|1e Kent Fire projects in the fut:re. Sincerely , Rick Morrison All Dright Electric B lwhRed tp - e er( OLYMPIA= An ever-increasing Housing Committee Thursday mind were rumors that the-worle aangle,gf state and local red tape is c :morning largest_aircraft maker was going -Zincking Washington less compeii7 In front of a seayof well-healed build their new jumbo jet in Wicl ' tive than other state's for Boeing's lobbyists, television cameras and ta, Kansas, and 'not in the Pu_ business,-a company official told. ;reporters straining to catch his every Sound region. lawmakers Thursday. word, Gay told the committee mem- "The decision to proceed wi On a day when Boeing's shear bees that the state's permitting pro-_ this airplane project will be dictat: economic muscle was being felt cess took too long, frivolous appeals by the world market.This means t '.throughout the state, company-Vice an awsut s nee. essly slowed con- timing and location will be dictat President for Facilities Andy Gay struction of developments and wet-' by the-world market, Gay said. did a little quiet flexing of his own. land requirements were vague, The current ppermittmg prqce s With the announcement that inconsistent and wasteful stage. make Puget So`u ess com-etiti 2 000 Boeing jobs were being He told lawmakers that the slate's than in t e past, or with other loc eliminated, Boeing's- financial permitting process is too costly tions_':___ future was center stage in a joint time consuming and-d tiicult. He `—'He gave the lawmakers a list of hearing before'1 67 House Com- hinted it could drive the aerospace agencies and 55 statutes that en% merce and Labor Committee and the giant out of the state. ronmental regulations fore Trade, Economic Development and But what was on the everyone's. Boeing to comply with. -nay I.i.IJ MONTGOMERY,PURDUE,BIAANKINSHIP&AUSTIN \ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ROBERTA PURDUE,P.S. 5&h FLOOR COLUMBIA CENTER DAVID B.HANSEN JOHN D.BLANKINSHIP,P.S. 701 FIFTH AVENUE MICHAEL W.BABCOCK GALE D.BARBEE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 96104 GEORGE W.AKERS,P.S. (206)682-7090 STUART P.KASTNER ]FRAY W.SPOONEMORE JOSEPH C.BROWN,IR WILLIAM K.GOODWIN FACSIMILE(206)625-9534 DONALD R.MORRISON M.WAYNE BLAIR ROBERT M.BARTLETT LYNN O.HURST TAMARA L ROE JEFFREY L P9Wft ROCKIE I.ULRICH CHRISTOPHER L HIRSr JAMES H.LOVELL ALAN L MONTGOMERY SCOTT B.FASTER WILI.IAM MONTGOMERY(1980) MICHAEL E GOSSLER ALAN F.AUS11N(1963) CAMILLE TAYLOR RALSTON CAW.R LUCKERATH(RETIRED) JAMFS H.WtSHAAR PEGGY C.HUGHES February 26, 1993 Mr. Robert W. Kitto Attorney at Law 515 W. Harrison P.O. Box 1144 Kent, WA 98035 Re: Letter from Finn Construction to the Mayor and City Council of Kent Dear Mr. Kitto: You have requested that I provide you with my reaction to the statements made by Gregory Finn in a letter dated September 4, 1992 to the City of Kent Mayor and Council concerning the Covington Fire Station project. As you know, I worked as legal counsel to the fire district concerning difficulties in completing and then resolving claims concerning this project. I have several reactions. Generally speaking, it is not unusual for a contractor to attempt to blame the owner or the owner's representative when a project has difficulties. This project had numerous difficulties, many of which involved contractor or subcontractor difficulties, in my opinion. As a consequence, based solely on general experience, I would view the statements made by a contractor on such a project with skepticism. Specifically concerning Norm Angelo's supervision of this project, I believe the hest way to e:tYress my reaction is to attach the enclosed letter to Chef.�ngeio from me dated June 1, 1992. As you can see, this letter was written before I would have had any knowledge of Mr. Finn's letter, and it accurately describes my feelings about the project and the conduct of Chief Angelo and his staff. If you have further questions, please call. Sincerely. Christopher L. Hirst CLH:kts:plj\pdp5035 Enclosure JAMES L. ANDERSON, ARCHITECT 10631 Southeast Fourth Bellevue, Washington 98004 206-453-0585 To Whom It May Concern 24611 116th Ave. S.E. Kent, Washington 98031 Dear Sirs: -= My experiences working with the Kent Building Department and Fire District #37 were so positive I felt compelled to express appreciation for their work. As an Architect I deal with many Building Departments. Kent stands out as one of the best because of its strict adherence to the Building Code, its insistence that the Contractor follow the Construc- tion Documents for which the Building Permit is issued, and its com- mitment to a schedule for completing the Permit process. The require- ment that construction deviations from the Permitted Construction Docu- ments be clearly drawn, signed by the Architect or Engineer, approved by the Building Department, and attached to the Permit Documents maintains a clear understanding by all of what is expected as a result of changes. An area for improvement, based on my experience, is a greater commitment by the Building Officials to expedient communications when changes are being requested during construction. No set of Documents is perfect so changes are inevitable. Each communication delay (i.e. slowly returned phone calls) is a potential construction delay which means higher costs for all. When dealing with the Fire Department personnel during the construction of a new fire station (one of many under construction or design at the same time) I found them to be universally professional in dealing with me and others involved with the project. They expected only what they contracted for and in turn supplied that which was their responsibility. Decisions were made through channels and were never countermanded by 'higher-ups'. Their teamwork and mutual respect, from the Chief down through the Project Representatives, was admirable and an asset to the project. In summary I have enjoyed my dealings with the Kent Building Department and Fire District 37 and look forward to working with both again. Sincerely, ame La�Anderson, Architect MAR 11 1993 OFFICE - ar T hE 114AY( Lawrence M. Campbell & Associates — Architects & Planners March 10, 1993 Attn: Mr. Tony McCarthy, Chief Administrative Officer City of Kent 220 4th Avenue So. Kent, WA 98032 Re: City of Kent Building Permit Process Dear Sir: The purpose of this letter is to express my view of the existing permit process, in particular within the Kent Building and Planning Departments. I own an architectural firm located in Kent: my practice involves work in various communities, jurisdictions, out of state and occasionally out of the country. As such; I have a view of the permit process that is totally independent of the inner workings of the City, but at the same time is dependent on these inner workings for the time frame in which building permits are processed. Because of inefficient staffing levels, the City of Kent permit process for both new construction and tenant improvements is not an effective process. In my view it is creating an adverse economic climate for the City at a time when both the public and private sectors should be working very hard to find effective solutions that will help struggling businesses become profitable. The current permit processing staff levels are so low that the simplest tenant improvement is taking weeks to months where tt should be measured in days. The construction/ development industry is a vital part of our economic growth. It provides jobs at a time when jobs are badly needed, and it provides ways to visually improve the conditions within our City. It provides tax revenue, and vet right now it is being treated by the City of Kent almost as if it were a nuisance. 10024 S.E. 240th St. Kent, Washington 98031-5124 Suite 102 206-854-2470 Both the building permit process and the creation of new jobs and businesses within the City contribute revenue to the City. Kent can participate in its own economic well being by providing staffing levels that get the job done on a timely basis. Until the City provides adequate staffing levels to support an efficient permit process it will continue to work against Kent as a desirable place to operate a business. Expediting the permit process does not lead to inferior projects. I am not talking about changing the rules and regulations, I am talking about changing a process that is cumbersome, time consuming, and financially distressing to both the City and the local community. I request that you provide staffing levels for the permit process that focus on getting the job done. Please understand that what I have stated here is not in criticism of individuals within either the Planning or Building Departments. I respect their efforts and believe that they are working hard to serve the community's best interest. It is the staffing level of the permit process that is inadequate and needs immediate correction. Since ly. Lawrence M. Campbell, AIA LMC:mc iJ%1wiRAM RECEIVED rr.o. b,;, 30c MAR Bepevue Pecos, 15 19U3 '06.6;, :•r ,:, CITY ADMINISTRATI Fez 3oc 6 37.;� 79 March 12, 1993 Mayor Dan Kelleher City of Kent 220 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98031 RE Building✓Permit Review Delays. Dear Mayor Kelleher, I am a property owner and developer working in the City of Kent. I am writing to express my concern and dismay over a recent bulletin from the building official, Robert D. Hutchinson. It is completely unacceptable to have a building official to issue a statement such as Hutchinson did in his bulletin on March 8, 1993. Mr. Hutchinson is blaming the delays on "declining Staff resources". It is my understanding that most of the staff reduction took place in the planning department. The planning department plays a minor role in plan review (building set backs and tree plan) and should not vindicate any increase in permit review time. Without a predictable time frame for building permit review, the building department is allowing themselves to impose unfair delays that will only increase the burden on the already troubled home building industry. I urge you to immediately review the permit delay problem and make necessary changes to eliminate these unwarranted permit delays. The building department must establish a time frame for permit review that more realistically represents the time required to review an application and issue a building permit. Yours truly D. Bocek Co. David Bocek T H E O D O R E E N I X O N A I A A R C H I T E C T 911 E . Temperance Street Kent , WA 98031 (206) 859 2388 March 16, 1993 Mayor & City Council Kent,Washington Re: Plan Review Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: It has been brought to my attention that the City Council is considering revisions to the permit process which could shorten the permitting process. As a resident of Kent and as a practicing architect, I appreciate your review of this costly and bureaucratically entangled_process. I would like to share a few of my thoughts regarding the process. And I would like to state my support of the permit process review committee's recommendations, at least in principle. The brevity of the permit process is very important to the economic health of our community. Be it the architect, the engineer, the owner or the unemployed worker a delay in the permit process is a slowdown in the economic development of a community. A costly or a slow permit process drives businesses away. I'd like to digress for a moment and define the permit process in its simplest terms. It's plans checking -- we are concerned that the designer's instructions are compatible with the accepted building standards of the community. And it's inspection -- did the builder correctly execute the plans. That's it! The building standards of a community are defined in its codes and ordinances and are further embellished through the SEPA process and the predevelopment meeting with all the jurisdictional departments.-These processes are completed before a building permit is even applied for. So when a plan is submitted for permit, it is a matter of checking for compliance with an established checklist for that project. And this is where the process historically bogs down; because the whole project has to be routed to individuals in different departments with individual lists. And this is where a single function department would be invaluable to an expedient permit process. I'm going to stop here. I could write a thesis on the topic. But hopefully I've written enough to cause the City Council to consider the committee's recommendations with great concern. Thank you for y ur time. You truly, Ted ixon ,I =77•- Star Lake Road ^r,r Alb!:rn . WA; o ?1 March 1c:�. V Editor Valley Daily News P. 0. Box I.30 I;ent . WA 98035 Dear Editor: I had a "sweet/bitter" (the sweetness came first` experience on a recent Tuesday evenina. I attended the city council me=tine at v:hich the momentous_ decision was to be made, at long_ last, about th= budding Permit mess. There was a ma=_.terful preSentation made by the chairman c . the Ma.vor' c Task: Force. It incl�_:ded: 1 ) a. review of preyio_1=_ but unimplemented effort to remediate it , 2', an inci =_= . = analy=_is of the Current process_ and ) a, dramatic . and Simpis �r :Tt7�n�=._'_0 Or immediate implementation. The recommendation was so awesome, and =_Impie, 1 th.-uQht t'-:e council would "jUMPI On It " . After &11 if ',fie permit -1rc=es Oi n] could be reduced from 52 days to 7. wouldn ' t that be the answer +e *-he Mavor' = praver^ . I was therouohly confused by the c_uncilMANIC disco-.sicn. that ensued. There wasn' t anv mention e-F the 52/7 e.so=ct the recommendation. I bean to wonder if they W r e iUSt D=ssiin. that =T= as > "pipe dream" . I then, beoan to wonder 1T it was really dca~i =. (The "Sweetness and light" thino started to =.d= --- and m': spirit t•Jlth Ahl.. Rut wasn' t this task: force _:T.QQsed cf peccl :n of h: chl , credible and broad—ra.-iq-ng _xper _is WrUId the- dream" on us" - Well , sad to sav, in these days_ . =_cme Ta=_,.: Forces a.. c a. -mek:- =cr=_n iOr =urreotitious initiatives. However ! they did say that the permit prcces=_Ina time could be EL:t '.'rom 52. days to _ days. It ' s there in �_ - 1 bla-1. an�� white, Why no'- put them to the test and INVITE THEM TO PUT THEIR "MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUT; ARE"^ That would be a o!!ick: way to see what pipe dreams are . _=.11y like, wouldn' t it' The proposal recommends engaaina an "interim manager " . Hew better to do that than by REACTIVATING THE COMMITTEE AND OFFERING THE:'? THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION WOF:f ^ ! Couldn ' t someone On the committee act a5 the "interim" DersOrt CO set up the structure. particularly with the rest of the committee to t in an oversite caoacity" Wouldn ' t this be the best way to se_ to that all of the comple;:itie=_ are properly addressed so that the objective perceived by the committee would be most lik:ely to be achieved" (Often these kinds of studies fall short bece._;se the person charged with implementino the re'=ommendations doesn' t have the clarity of vision nor the personal committment that the committee originating the plan had. ) I can' t imagine that people who have invested as much time and effort as they did, wouldn' t ;Limp at the chance to "put up" rather than "shut up " (see their efforts co for naught, that is) . Wouldn' t this be a worthwhile idea for the Council to pursue early-on at their retreat"' What would the,/ risk: by doinq it? Their inspectors would still be there to see that all codes and reoulations are met during the building stage. The Fire Department inspectors would still have the authority to require all Life Safety codes to be met. The only change would be that all PROPEF'LY PRE'FARED PERMIT APPLICATIDNE would be processed in days rather than 52 days , (Messy ones t• ould either to rejected or sent- back to the drawing board . ) Come to think: of it. it has merit for =mother reason as Well --- rather than spending_ the whole retreat has=_ling over this i =_Ue, Lhey could dispense with it in half an hour and -peed the rest or' their retreat with the WETLANDS ISSUE. NOW THERE' S A "CAN OF WORMS" WHAT AM. These "=sweet/bi+ter " c_•mments are Llml rlat: =•ns I felt C_mp=ll =d 4--'- record and submit because of my e;:asperatiori over the sad commentary of the fadino opportunity for the fair city of h..ent to reach it' s potential of be-Inc the " i —ej •l " SLiburb im the whcle PLig== Sou..nd Metropolis. Muddling_ around with such a. simple and ir.necUOUS thing as the PERMIT RO r ^ foreboding . I wo_:.ld iil:e to hop= �r.MI F .JC�S� sa m horrendousl , that It is only a "tempor`.; insanity" and that we can Get these trl`J: al distractions ol0- of the via.v and , s01Tietlme s=70n . tO=Lis as T.uch _.ttem=_cn on savino our youth as we do or-, savinq our .)etIands ! nL_tf . sod, Neil Heigeland P. S. by the way, is it proper for the Council (policy maF_-er=_) to have a retreat with the Staff (administrators) 7 Ju=_t =Sian' S1AP[ tiC`t�dl� ,y. J (;FNF COLIN f' i v Chair STATE or WASHINGION STATE BUILDINC; CODE COUN01. 9UG C'oluu�hi�5trrrf 51•t • FO. Noa'483Uo • Oiympia, Washington 98.504.11300 • t�'OG)58G•04NG • 15CAN) 37i 0481 March 30, 1993 The Honorable Dan Kelleher, Mayor City of Kent 220 4th Avenue South Kent, Washington 980.12 Dear Mayor Kelleher; I am writing to commend your excellent staff in the Kent Building Department, I have had the- opportunity over the last several months to work with them on a number of complex interpretation issues related to the Washington State Regulations for Barrier-Free Facilities. Their knowledge and comprehension of'thc state barrier-free regulations, as well as their dedication to ensuring that the regulations are fairly and competently implemented, is a credit to you and the citizens of Kent. Because of the efforts of Building Official Bob Hutchinson, Mary Kate Gaviglio, Kathy Korth, Jack Fingold, and the other members of the department, people with disabilities will find fewer barriers in Kent,- This means that your development community will be less likely to face complaints under the Federal Fair Dousing and Americans with Disabilities Acts, which require that new residential and commercial buildings be constructed to provide access to people with disabilities. It is a pleasure to work with such competent, informed code enforcement professionals, and I look forward to working with them in the future. Sincerely, & D �4 V William F. O'Neil Jr, Unit Manager WEO:mm cc: Kent City Council h� E ( E j y - ,r_•,� 777= Star/ Lake Road A!tb!urn. WA 9Scjc i l 2 199Ij Apr. 1 . OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Kent City Mayor and Col_incilpeoPle =20 4th Av S Kent, WA 980_2 Your Honors, I was moved to write and submit the attached letter because of my intense feeline=_ about the sub ect matter. It apparently was not published and perhaps_ the editor was wise in not doing so. I am still moved to e:cpre=_e my=_alf though c.nd airy choosinU to do it this way. I hope not to caUse y01_i angUisrl by so doing, but if it does I gue=_- I ' ll 2uSt have to hope to be excused =or it on the ba.=is of " it going with the territory" so to speak:. Pc-rhaDEs an =.:51 -.r-! tiler: I_+ t�jh- -- the inte_n=_ t . _r Iny feelings orieinate= rii11 help ,,cL� understand why I goirla to this troutie. I ' m "Mourn away' tv the -act that . in the lQ_=' ' E m.y father Viewed the Lepartment c Nor-iCU1r_tre a=_ a for him and hi = -,e_, chbcrs: my son ho:Je•:er, will =ay that hie father Vieir d the Departm:=nt o' Du ldlne and Larld Development as }-DR:RENDDUS 0-'STACLE to me and m•: neibhbors. This, even thoueh both cecartmenis had aubEtantial re^.l:i at Cl a:_Iticrlt•.r tC b the Apo=_ +nr.i -J!- th-' 1 a.`_-=+ _ ri I-: r-e-h eY:per A" T WF•CING T❑ F77c1 Tnr T T�iilJ Tr .c� EJLiGHi NEr�, TINE ( it 7 =�? a- - 7 T 01,E VE •�.l�1 En i -�r•Iv r=- c� n � of _er HAT r; GO. F, u .EN u� HAVE BECOME MORE _._er f-i-nd1 . F:�,THEF: THAN arrcca.l hostile"? It is �;❑;Tl that ytars Cf ITn=!;n t'_ rg frustrati0r1 the` T_ felt m,cyed . to c h.at I did .and to -Follow up OF, it in this wa ; . hoFe yCu under=tand . Since-ely, Enc: Lettsr to the Editor of the f:ent N=aa Journal 617 Eastlake Avenue E. P.O.Box 9159 Seattle,WA 206 6: FAX LETTER April 20. 1993 Charlene Anderson CELLULARONE Community Development Department City of Kent IMAGINE NO LIMITSa 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: Proposed O'Brien Cellular Communication Facility, 20826 68th Avenue S. (#CE92-8) Dear Charlene: As you know, Interstate Mobilephone (d/b/a Cellular One) has had an application for a cellular communication facility with you since August 19, 1992 for the construction of a facility at West Coast Machine Tool, 20826 68th Avenue South. You required that the zoning code violations present at West Coast Machine Tool be cleared up before Cellular One would receive approval to install its facility, The property owner, Steve Krom, has been working with you to alleviate zoning code violations on his property for the past 6 months. I understand that you and Mr. Krom have only a couple items to negotiate--- ducks ate the ground cover he had planted and there are inoperable cars an the property. Cellular One must begin construction on this facility next Monday, April 26. We are out of time and out of patience. This letter will notify you and all those who receive this letter that we shall begin construction on April 26. 1 hope that you and Mr. Krom can clear up the remaining items by Monday, April 26. 1 have been very disappointed with the way in which this matter has been handled by the City of Kent. I have had to check on the status of this project every week for the past six months or more and my phone calls were often not returned. I have had to contact the Planning Director and City Manager's Office for assistance In processing our application. I believe it was inappropriate to hold Cellular One's project as a hostage on West Coast Machine Tool's property due to zoning code violations on the property and not to have staff available to work with Mr, Krom in a timely manner to resolve those violations. I look forward to resolution of the zoning code violations this week. I believe Mr, Krom has made a good faith effort to resolve these issues as he's spent $30,000 to resolve code violations on his property. The City of Kent needs to examine ways in which it can foster economic develop in a predictable and timely fashion rather than impeding business development as this project has experienced, Please call me at 389-5269 if you have questions. Sincerely, /l h"��, gn V/z Roberta Goodnow Site Acquisition Manager cc: Mayor Dan Kelleher Tony McCarthy (Jan Bannister) James Harris Steve Krom Co CD C- Fw h r. rr' a'D m O O a .+ a CD m w y..7�.m G Z N � Rey^ yaom ny ova �3' n =rcn C) 2 CD .i °- C .� m m w o 04 rr+'m'D -s N S(A w . a .i'C .--`,,,`.(m7 0 0 C m y,n •�".,w O w W O y n 6 N 'O fn O ::r a'7C m c< (D z � a C .,, - w � a CD N a '.a-. w O 'L7 a m � cn 7 y 00 O a w�n m O m baq`6 CD N O 0. o ID m o o 'D _w GO N G o w _ n =r �w - N CD m G a m a 0 o cn� spam � � ao 3n'm CL �D 0 mom a : G m 0 a (D � � �? N N w w 1 a f. �.v c� • m G TS W o"C� ��o c� (cD a �O o.o c ooG :Eo a vGo-ooNa �ac � m � o " o � �o � r� a _ _ ° m C w'c--, �n -, w 6^ a O p o N .G. (?. m .m-. v''.a-. w a.O m L3 o m ?I m 7 (D n X N 0.n%.w--O (� w w y' a (D y a 0 CD 0-0-0 m a y T m G 3 o a G n m a G Ei'� w o oq w ., (D w.z o z 0. n T N ° 0.O O m a mm vn.° N O O' r T n m6ti y co N vqG�' wcomCD w a .-•� ° ° o ny CD ti°c - a � - 0 NL CL 0cn O w m oG ro T O of cmFGm � �_ �c " o• o 6 nn z - ?'^ � N Gc o o m m r■ o m •-n rn "L7 d a -0 G P � ow Gm (D a c �t n Nn c3 o on - Cd U'S•O 'G_^O N O �Oq� °' (-° (D Oq p.3 "'� G - Er G m^ mD �CN a w 3 D w o C7 0. (D 00p m fn w a p N - L1.a_m O ("O G w+ A��,(D G �. 0 (D �;7 �y a(yD w'w ti w-'�3 , CD P •y-gym ¢.� CD Cl Q. CD N :N o r- r- ^.n �'mo'o w N 0o vmi O m�•.N (D .tea mT.'O 7 m � 0 a ' N G E-0 .iy T G a'aq w 0 £ a m G (D m m ] ti W m N N y n y (mD O (GD (D .`]^' a (�D m m a m 0q (' O ^t Rom O G O - CD -' '4"Trdr=eflCrowCompany April 26, 1993 5601 Sixth Avenue South P.O. Box 80326 Seattle, Washington 98108 Leona Orr 206/762-4750 Councilmember Fax: 2061763-9871 City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue So. Kent, 'WA 98032 RE: Permit Process Revision Dear Leona: I'm sorry that I will not be able to attend your meeting on Monday night, April 26, 1993. I have reviewed the proposal and recommendations dated May 28, 1992, the Department Heads Proposed Permit Center memo dated October 1, 1992 and the Permit Center Plan memo dated February 9, 1993. Trammell Crow Company has purchased or developed almost 6 million square feet of industrial projects in the City of Kent in the past 10 years. Throughout this dme, our comfort with the permit process has remained high as the City has maintained appropriate staffing levels and met, or come very close to meeting; the targeted permit issuance dates established upon submittal. After review of the proposals to revise the permit process, it appeared to me that major commercial projects were not fully addressed. The City of Kent has always differentiated itself from the cities of Auburn and Renton by having a more predictable and shorter permit timeline compared to its neighboring municipalities. This was a very important component of attracting Starbucks new roasting facility to the City of Kent. I would caution that any change in the permit review process not result in either lengthening or increasing the uncertainty of the major commercial project permit timeline. The current reduced staffing levels will likely result in more uncertainty and longer permit timelines, resulting in the City of Kent losing its competitive edge. It is obvious that the permit process is a very hitrh priority for the City of Kent_ Compared with most municipalities in the Puget Sound Area, the existing permit process in Kent is far better than others. Your efforts to further streamline and improve the process are to be commended and we wish that other municipalities would pay the same amount of attention to this important process as the City of Kent is doing now. If can be of anv assistance, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, CROW COMPANY Kirk John n ManaginTirector I Kent City Council Page Two Apri126, 1993 "How well does the Building Department, department heads and staff deal with these circumstances, while processing permit applications and at the same time fulfilling their responsibilities to the public at large?" is a far better question. In my opinion, the answer is "quite well." I would like to echo comments offered by Dan Ivanoff during the Planning Commission hearings on the subject of Kent's building permit process, which confirm that the performance is excellent relative to other jurisdictions. The Kent building permit processes, whether for new structures or tenant improvements, has been and continues to be far superior to other jurisdictions as respects predictability, efficiency, timeliness and accommodation of those issues that are unusual or highly specialized. Personnel from department heads through all layers of staff are generally knowledgeable, responsive, consistent and accessible. These comments are not to suggest that subtle changes and/or new ideas would not be beneficial to the building permit process. Developers by their very nature possess an extreme sense of urgency. often, complaints are a result of this sense of urgency coming face to face with the need for a careful review of the intended project as respects code issues, structural implications, etc. Perhaps consideration could be given to providing a mechanism where the applicant would have an option to expedite the permit process by utilizing city-approved outside review, such as an outside structural engineer, mechanical engineer, etc., with the expense for the outside review being borne by the applicant. Consideration might also be given to allowing the applicant to expedite permit processing through funding staff overtime consistent with the availability of overtime hours. Both of these suggestions would help address an issue raised at your Planning Commission meetings as to the lack of City funding for additional staff. Finally, I would suggest that the Council consider carefully any wholesale restructuring of a permit process that works very well, particularly as respects comparison to other jurisdictions. The current system has served the city and the public very well through a prolonged period of intense developmental pressure, an achievement which in large part is attributable to the quality and concern of department heads and staff. PIease don't allow the current permit process and city dep, - nts to be arbitrarily ravaged for the sake of irresponsible political objectives. T nk yo for the opportunity to comment. Kinde t repar f� Jack R. nnett CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. REPORTS A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. BUDGET COMMITTEE H. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/AD - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- ject: 5/18 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/AD Dated: 01/06/93 at 0949 . TO: MAYOR KELLEHER, COUNCIL PRESIDENT WOODS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS THE CITY CLERK RECEIVED NOTICE LAST WEEK THAT JULY 30TH IS THE LAST DAY TO NOTIFY THE COUNTY OF ANY BALLOT ISSUES FOR THE NOVEMBER 2 GENERAL ELECTION. I KNOW THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND YOUTH CENTER FACILITIES ARE IN THE PLANNING STAGES, BUT ITS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY KIND OF VOTER APPROVAL AS SOON AS THIS FALL. NEGOTIATION IS GOING WELL WITH KEITH SANDEN AND SSMD. WE ARE STILL SCHEDULED FOR A 6/1/93 TRANSITION DATE. WE ARE ALSO STILL LOOKING AT GETTING APPROXIMATELY $150, 000 IN BUY OUT FUNDS WHICH THE CITY WILL NEED TO DECIDE HOW TO ALLOCATE. OPTIONS INCLUDE GOLF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, GOLF DEBT RETIREMENT, OR GOLF WORKING CAPITAL. PROPOSALS WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE PARK COMMITTEE THIS SUMMER. UPCOMING EVENTS 7/16-17 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 12 s WINTERFEST PARADE & HOLIDAY LIGHTING CEREMONY CITY OF �2�� CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE May 5, 1993 4 : 00 PM V&RWTC'Tk Committee Members Present City Attorney' s Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Planning Staff Other City Staff Jim Harris Jed Aldrich Margaret Porter Norm Angelo Fred Satterstrom Mary Berg Bob Hutchinson Tony McCarthy Alana McIalwain GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F Satterstrom) No update was given. PROPOSED SEATAC SEWER EXTENSION - (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris displayed a northwest City boundary map. Mr. Harris reported Mike Knapp, Planning Director of SeaTac, said they are not pushing for what they wanted on the original request, but they are interested in proposing extension of sewers on Military Road. Director Harris recommended the City keep negotiations open with the City of SeaTac. The Committee decided to take no action until another issue is brought to the Committee by the City of SeaTac. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS (PAA) - (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris passed out a revised Interim Potential Annexation Area Map and explained the boundaries. Mr. Harris reported that the draft resolution simply gets the City of Kent on the record adopting an Interim Potential Annexation Area. Fire Chief Norm Angelo stated his concern about this interim period prior to annexation regarding fire districts. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of a resolution adopting an Interim Potential Annexation Area to be brought to the full council on May 18 , 1993 . Motion carried. CHESTNUT RIDGE ANNEXATION CENSUS - (M. Porter Administrative Assistant Margaret Porter reported that May 6, 1993 is the effective date for the City of Kent Annexation of the Chestnut Ridge Area CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 4 , 1993 PAGE 2 (Ordinance No. 3099) . To determine the resident population of the newly annexed territory in the City of Kent, Ms. Porter reported that Marilyn McCurtain was hired as the consultant to do this project. On Friday, May 5th, Marilyn will be calling the Margaret Porter to give the Department the definite cost of this project. Ms . McCurtain estimated the cost to be $5, 000 or less. The requirement of the ordinance i. to have the census completed by June 6, 1993 and Marilyn agreed on this. ADDED ITEMS• CIVIL VIOLATIONS ENFORCEMENT AND ABATEMENT ORDINANCE - (R. Lubovich) City Attorney Roger Lubovich mentioned that everyone present at the meeting except for Jim Harris heard the presentation on this ordinance. It was agreed Mr. Lubovich did not need to go over the entire ordinance except a few minor changes in the ordinance. The changes are on page 5, section 1. 04 . 030C(1) g, and 1. 04 . 030C(2) which is entitled the Right to a Hearing Waived. The new wording clarifies that the person responsible for the violation waives the right to a hearing before the Hearing Examiner under this chapter. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement Ordinance with the recommended changes an, forward to the full council on May 18 , 1993 . Motion carried. ZONING CODE ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE - (R Lubovich) City Attorney Roger Lubovich reported last year that the Kent Zoning Code was amended to provide for civil violation enforcement. This program was originally set up for the Planning Director to hear all reviews, appeals, etc. The new ordinance brought to the Committee amends Chapter 15. 10 of the Kent City Code relating to civil violations, enforcement of development and use regulations, providing civil penalties, abatement procedures, and collection of any necessary costs by the City to refer all violations to this new chapter (Chapter 1 . 04 just adopted above) rather than the Planning Director doing administrative reviews. The violation goes through the Hearing Examiner process. Since this is a change in the Zoning Code, this ordinance will be heard by the Planning Commission and then brought to the City Council for approval for their hearing on May 24 , 1993 . No action was needed by the Planning Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4 : 37 p.m. PC0504 .MIN PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES May 3, 1993 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods Leona Orr Jon Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Chief Crawford Roger Lubovich Dave Haenel Laurie Evezich Captain Byerly Tony McCarthy Chief Angelo Mary Berg MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Tom & Mary Pinches, Beanery Jean Parietti 2 Unidentified Citizens The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Committeemember Orr. Orr noted that Judy Woods was filling in tonight for Paul Mann, Chairman. She also noted that because two regular members of the Committee are not present for this meeting, the Omni/ Beanery issue (Item #5 on the Agenda) will not be addressed until the meeting of May 17, 1993. Tom Pinches, Beanery owner, passed out a copy of the City of Kent Ordinance No. 2839 relat- ing to dance halls and then left the meeting because this item was removed from the Agenda. Committeemember Johnson arrived at the meeting late. Vallev Communication Center Interlocal Agreement Chief Angelo explained that the wording for the existing Valley Communications Center Inter- local Agreement has been changed to make it more compliant with the way the State law reads concerning the holding of property, entering into contracts, etc. He noted that this change will also allow the City to enter into contracts with King County to receive funds for the County- wide regional radio system which will help pay for the sale of the City's radio system. Lubovich clarified that this is just basically a house cleaning measure. WOODS MOVED approval of this item with placement under the Consent Calendar for the May 18, 1993 Council Meeting. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Civil Violations Ordinance City Attorney Lubovich explained that there has been an inadequate way to deal with junk vehicles, public nuisances, and debris in front of houses so the Mayor formed a committee consisting of the Public Works, Planning, and Law Departments to put some concepts together to help draft ordinances dealing with these problems. He noted that the concept is to have a new chapter under Administration entitled, "Civil Violations, Abatement and Enforcement Chapter". He noted that this ordinance will be setting up the mechanism for the enforcement of a number of civil violations such as junk vehicles, public nuisances, zoning violations, weeds and vegetation so that a uniform process for dealing with violations can be used without having ten different processes. Upon Orr's question, Lubovich noted that the Civil Violations issue will be taken to the Planning and Public Works Committees. He also noted that the issue of weeds and vegetation will be taken to the Public Works Committee. WOODS MOVED for the adop- tion of this ordinance pertaining to civil violations. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Disposition of Junk Vehicles on Private Property City Attorney Lubovich explained that the junk and abandoned vehicles ordinance is a scaled down version which follows the State law criteria. He noted that in order for a vehicle to be subject to abatement or violation, it would have to be defined under State statute as a junk vehicle as follows: (1) 3 years old or older; (2) extensively damaged; (3) apparently inoperable without a valid current registration plate; (4) and, has the approximate fair value equal to the approximate value of the scrap in it. He stated that the notice criteria is almost identical to the civil violations with some added criteria like dealing with the Washington State Patrol and the Department of Motor Vehicles with the licensing issue, but the civil violations ordinance is referred to for compliance and enforcement. WOODS MOVED for the adoption of the junk vehicles ordinance. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Public Nuisances Ordinance City Attorney Lubovich explained that the new ordinance is a more comprehensive one which repeals the public nuisances ordinance section relating to abatement. He noted that when the new Kent City Code was codified, a violation penalty was left out of the litter control ordinance with no fine for violation, but that the new ordinance adds a civil penalty of $100.00 for littering. Lubovich clarified that the litter ordinance will be left strictly "litter", and debris on private property will be included in the public nuisances ordinance. He explained that con- taminated soils has been added into the ordinance along with criminal activity so it's on the books and can be dealt with also. He added that a misdemeanor section has been included in all the new proposed ordinances (Civil Violations, Junk Vehicles, and Public Nuisances) to help deal with repeat violations where more than a citation is needed. Upon McCarthy's question, Lubovich clarified that "ugly houses" is not something that you just ban because it's ugly. He noted that if you are talking about a house that is partially open and partially boarded up, it becomes a Building/Fire Code issue. WOODS MOVED for the adoption of this ordinance. Johnson seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Omni/Beanery Issue Woods commented that this item is clearly not a legislative issue and should not be before the committee. She noted that the issue should be worked out between the parties involved and that it is her understanding that Capt. Byerly has been dealing with this issue. Lubovich noted that the only way it would become a legislative issue would be if the hours for.operation of the business would be changed and regulated. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MAY 5, 1993 PRESENT: DON WICKSTROM JIM BENNETT GARY GILL PAUL MANN ED WHITE SCOTT ROSE ROGER LUBOVICH JOHN KIEFER TOM BRUBAKER MR. & MRS. RUST Note: City Attorney, Roger Lubovich, was not able to stay for the duration of the meeting, so Councilman Jim Bennett suggested that Items 6 and 7 be discussed first. Civil Violations Enforcement and Abatement ordinance Lubovich explained that this draft ordinance came about as a result of a number of problems the City has had dealing with basically junk and/or garbage in residential yards and the inability of our codes to deal with it. The basic premise behind the ordinance was to provide a structure for obtaining compliance for the civil violation rather than prosecuting a criminal misdemeanor. A "Notice of Violation" would be issued by the applicable Department of Head if a voluntary agreement between the owner and the City could not be secured. The notice automatically triggers a Hearing Date. However, if the person complies before that date, the Hearing is not held. If he does not comply, the case will be presented and the Hearing Examiner will issue an order assessing penalties, compliance dates, required action, etc. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner must be submitted no sooner than 10 days and not more than 45 days after the notice is issued. The Director can extend the time frame at his discretion. If the party in question is not satisfied with the order, he can appeal to the Superior Court 30 days after the decision has been made. However, if the voluntary agreement is not complied with or the person did not comply with the Hearing Examiner ' s order, then the City can go in and abate the nuisance and/or violation and assess the individual landowner the penalty as well as the cost of abatement through either a court process or an alternate process. Lubovich explained further that State Statues also provide another mechanism that would allow the City to lien a property for 1 abatement measures, after the Hearing Examiner ' s findings and conclusions, if the Council passed a resolution or an ordinance requiring a clean up. Mann felt that although everything could be put in the code books, the fact remained that we still need code enforcement. Lubovich noted that while issues like weeds & vegetation would be under the responsibility of certain Department Heads like Don Wickstrom and zoning violations under Jim Harris, public nuisances and junk vehicles would probably be under some Code Enforcement or Building Office. He was not sure where this ordinance would fit in the permit process. However, he stated that the resources for code enforcement would be most critical . Mann inquired whether it would be necessary to increase personnel. Lubovich explained that while he was not suggesting this, the City does have a Code Enforcement Office which only deals with building and fire codes and is not comprehensive. This department has nothing to do with junk vehicles, garbage in yards or public nuisances. Mann questioned if all this was brought together under one umbrella, would the ordinance have to be revised at all. Lubovich noted that they have not actually drafted any ordinances for it, that it was still a concept that has to be adopted. Bennett Mated that he was one of the supporters of this idea because there was language in the codes but no way to enforce it. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement Ordinance. Mrs. Rust inquired where the noise abatement fit in. Lubovich stated that that was actually a separate ordinance and that they considered including noise abatement, but it was a more complicated, cumbersome process because half of it is dealt with by the Police Department and the other half is dealt with by our Building Officials because they use decimal readings on certain types of commercial/industrial noise infractions. The Police Department does on-the-spot, visual/audio noise infractions such as boom boxes and loud, amplified music. Weeds and Vegetation Lubovich explained that the purpose of this particular ordinance is to require the landowner to maintain vegetation around his property. Wetlands are exempt from this ordinance and also designated official street trees because they are City-maintained. Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Weeds and Vegetation Ordinance. 2 Sidewalks at Sequoia Jr. High Scott Rose, Construction Manager of the Kent School District #415, reported that the school is off of Kent-Kangley and 110th Avenue SE and is at the dead-end of the street. He explained that currently students are walking in the street or in the drainage ditches back and forth to school and that it has gotten so bad that during main traffic hours the two-lane road virtually becomes a one-lane road with kids on both sides of the street. Rose said that the School District proposes to have sidewalks built on both sides of the street so there no longer is a safety problem. Rose brought up the fact that there was a sidewalk fund for the City of Kent and expressed the desire for some of those funds to go towards the construction of sidewalks at least on the east side of the street, if not both sides. Bennett noted there was a signal light for those coming from west to east who could cross lllth Avenue to get to the sidewalk. Rose confirmed that there was a light at Kent-Kangley and 110th Avenue and an existing crosswalk across the street. Mann moved to form an LID for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Wickstrom, however, stated there were enough covenants to put the sidewalks in and mentioned that money, at Council ' s discretion, could be added to this project from the sidewalk fund. Wickstrom explained that the City would estimate the cost of the improvements and determine how it would be distributed to the affected properties. An informal public meeting would then be held to go over the project, the costs, how it would be paid for, and get input from the property owners as to whether they want to proceed or not. The information formulated would then come back to Public Works Committee for more direction as to pursuing the LID. Bennett inquired about the time element. Wickstrom stated that it would be at least 60 days before we could actually get the notices out for the public meeting. He explained that this process takes time to put together and figure out how to distribute the assessments . Mrs . Rust mentioned that when the School District built the junior high, it seems no consideration was given to the age group. She further questioned why the District did not put sidewalks in to begin with and why it didn 't come to their attention that the kids would no doubt be using the street. Rose agreed and stated that the school was built in 1965 and he did not know what their intentions were at that time. He stated that this issue had been raised three times previously but there was no money currently available and the sidewalk improvements were not included in a bond issue. Consequently, it was not able to be funded for at that time. Rose further explained that what is triggering the 3 improvements now are the students voicing their concerns at PTSA meetings. This organization, in turn, brought the need to the School Board and Councilman Jim White ' s attention. Rose went on to say that the School District is anticipating a 1994 School Bond which would go to the voters in February 1994 . Assuming that it passes, and the improvements are included, the earliest the District would be able to entertain doing the sidewalk improvements would be over a year from now. Wickstrom stated that under the LID process, the school would be assessed for their share of the project over a 10-year or 15-year period. Committee unanamiously agreed to proceed to the formation of an LID. Guardrail Along Green River Bennett stated this was brought about at the last meeting by Paul Mann regarding cars exiting into the river with people in them. Mann stated that the cost first had to be considered and if it will be effective. Wickstrom noted that a cost analysis could be worked up that would include several scenarios. Parking Restriction Resolution Brubaker stated that at the previous meeting, Chief Crawford agreed that on-street parking restrictions were well and good but created additional enforcement problems for the Police and felt that this would be a "loose-loose" situation for all parties involved. Brubaker noted that under the ordinance, the Zoning Code has parking requirements established which basically set up minimum requirements. However, certain high-density or multi-family buildings may in fact need additional parking spaces to meet their actual on-site, regular, long-term parking needs. Brubaker went on to say that in those situations when there isn 't enough parking, you get an over-flow situation which impacts the City streets and causes an enforcement or regulatory maintenance and operation problem for the City. Brubaker stated that the ordinance states a policy that encourages those property owners that have high-density or multi-family projects to be realistic about their parking needs at the time they go into construction to avoid over-flow impacts on City streets. Bennett stated that with the Commuter Trip Reduction, a good number of parking spaces would be reduced. However, he questioned how on one hand we could make the developer put adequate off-site parking to meet one goal and also meet minimum requirements to meet the Commuter Trip Reduction agenda, and then ask a citizen or user to accept parking restrictions. On the other hand, Bennett noted that 4 the citizens of the City of Kent pay for Police, Fire and things of this nature to be done. Bennett said there were a lot of issues here that he was not comfortable with. Ed White clarified for Bennett the Commuter Trip Reduction legislation. He explained that CTR was not meant for residential areas, but for employers, and was mainly designed to reduce the trips of . single-occupancy vehicles going to and from work on a daily basis. White noted that the requirements that are set for residential developments really do not fall into this commuter trip legislation. Brubaker added that if the citizens aren't allowed to drive in their cars, they would have to have a place to park at home. White explained that as we get more multi-family development, we will also be getting into a situation where more people have vehicles, i.e. boats, RV' s and families with more young drivers that have cars. White stated that the current Zoning Code is set up for parking and only allows minimum requirements. He noted that once a developer comes in and meets the minimum criteria, he can tell potential renters whatever he so chooses with regard to parking. However, once the renter is in, the occupant is caught in a situation where that promise is sometimes not fulfilled, but the City, however, is left to deal with the problem in terms of illegal parking or parking that uses up spaces that single-family residences need. Bennett felt that decals were somewhat logical to him but admits he has lost that logic. Mann questioned the fact that if you had visitors, they could not park because they would not have a decal on their vehicle. Brubaker stated that that was the enforcement problem; Police are not in a position to know whether the person who is parking without a decal is a guest or a violator. Brubaker stated that one compromise position would be to re-phrase the resolution, perhaps by adding a statement encouraging the City SEPA official (when reviewing the Environmental Checklist) to consider over-flow traffic and to mitigate it to the extent if possible. White mentioned again that the Zoning Code says that there is a certain minimum parking allowable. Brubaker added that if they could realistically identify the problem in the Checklist, then maybe we could require some additional on-site parking. Brubaker also said that it really was only a policy statement and doesn't have any enforcement. Mann suggested that Brubaker come back to committee with another resolution encompassing changes. White added that the City should try to send a message to the general public and the developers that we want to try and develop parking requirements that allow for over-flow parking to be accommodated on site. The City is not in the business of supplying 5 over-flow parking because it creates a legal, health, safety and welfare problem for the City and the streets are designed for the effective and efficient movement of traffic. Hill Building 80-A Bill of Sale Committee unanimously agreed to accept this bill of sale. Commuter Rail System Resolution (This resolution was added to the agenda by Jim Bennett for discussion. ) Bennett stated that he sees a cumbersome regional transit plan; although he somewhat agrees with the concept, he is not sure it is realistic in these economic times to spend 6. 9 billion dollars. Bennett said that being this is one leg of the plan and we have people that are ready to step forth to put it into play (BNRR, UPRR, Amtrak and other suppliers) , he felt that we could bring it to the forefront as a resolution and bring it to the Council to see if they would adopt his feelings . Bennett went on to read sections of the resolution describing in detail some of the more important points, i. e. : "Section 4 .. All agencies with jurisdiction in the King/Pierce/Snohomish County region are urged to expedite, in every way possible, the development and implementation of the proposed commuter rail project in the Green River Valley as a first step toward implementation of a regional mass transportation network designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles throughout the tri-county region in conformance with the City' s Commuter Trip Reduction program. " Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that Council adopt the Commuter Rail System Resolution. Meeting adjourned at 6 : 30 PM. 6