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 - 12/19/1995
'It r#! ,� verr,•br °ip,�`} o� � s #4f r��j}��11 Is+ rl,r• t � ri •, f ,f r. < v k FC i S ( � t• �, r 1 , p}«!it { rt#"i}imp SA r IVi�,y7l���, � irF'7t: •,r �� ' � r ti} ��.r ° I� '�tr! 1 ,,l;l:vtti,��f i 1; I l ee§I {{I Of � � I. J f }. 41, 6s�li!y��� Y ,i`.tdi Siafff I �4 �lxl� °E� t ( �^'i +; �f r ;i °+ r th r r i� 'i r}�p r+ 'Tji ! f 1 JM�II it rh�+ SFr r pt� r1 rya, Q 4 f s#.7ti � } Lfa, { J S !ai{�} F}ifi`° Id�3i�rp$ J r71 j❑#ill j�� I FC '� I,!Qss11µ�� Yy(!°�lriy;r °I�r }ri �Y lF�1" ,�! It 16�g1}If; 11 Q{ '4J ij� yyxi}�.�. rY`li lh° a r+ r s» {Y }; r ! r {! pfq{ „ ��5+`rrr Y " tSjs�� 1 I r : sS'jFjt rl alo� 7t f irr p f �ft� t 1 s ad lo 4r 51 1 1�!0� r•`e � I r k7 f ti Jt CF" t + e#. U s QS r 9�}9+N! {pt� e f .°: Y I+ vF r:,i t rF 2[gyp�:Sy+i i i r �r ai "�i r ° ', r "r E��{♦' r ° �: i�� ttSJRFQ f�;�dljr r �! "1�,� � k 9 '�� 4" " ! 'u�}`.o+F7 } r r t�r ,<3°r H( �I It 6 r ,,:�, }• ril, ' , ,%i �r ; t' a r ^ r1 ¢8! jf °{u£sF r t V n i 1 Fl 11 S 16"E�f>a fit# rr 31 sj, I IrtiY}t tjvs}s t}y }�j(in it jf ;q 8�t o ° 4rF s F�r li r !:•'f F F f I f �Y 1 (}� ast 1} i ru�Q4s1, i C;,� k r ,il.' `I „7 I "11 r 4x.rr}S r r.HffY srl ! c�j i k 0 1{ `9}StQ `}',6 + v '`P i}NQ t�I i r It:. 1 fs ° I°d fi; "•, r � j"�"# r r fd `:: Ir , I; r S vI ly f1) fl�Fr} r rlt v.e i +p 1 !! i +p� 1F�t 1IVv r r o t A p 1,. tl ,� ' r dlf°It lv§ , JF 2 i r 7r I�Wt,ir r t r t`;•.: ..�•.tr. E}iYlr( rl$�, �7�� It r,frlSE @ ay j r�il I �4r � 0.Y � Yi [ � ri r 1 rbrs titi3r 1'rr d� { r� idG1�C - �.•.t {I x�i �4a ,c} gg f f3.B tl( rntt r r '�UoSr V _ 1 rFg° !�f 7 0�lfinj;arilr ifv ,j J'u �"r; t i j' r Q ,FtF rnr ;f31en-nett� Jc3t'1 J0I-� �ir`► Tirn +:Clark Piaui IV�ar Sri sir. , r . ° Ona Drr '. � t Hot. tiit Y3 I rs';�J�i f;R�{ `I"r6r�,r l)d ar')�(eitFI���Fg�,(FlI7G� •" tp ,br',# 1 I " y' d\N ! j`.R1C•1( �jF�aFp3l�Rlp Yicl"� 9 f •1 1 Syr t l Y� a w YI\ ir, 'iP V+�f i ■ i�■ p4 �, r r1F�SFi f �t rI' 1111 41 jki SiF^M1 x j gal 'r ,, M i I}f 4I' + OEl t!1, ll ` ;t1 t i1 'i r i 1"li °5:,+, 1 ,+'`� VY l ;:,,.i nl r r'i'ysJ a '#� f h i ; jc ...t F( !iF 7 d1 y9 a„ jt! +rI F )riiii q Q� r i I rr tl E r' Si rIi$r.•n. r r?Iti.�i.e (i p f ; 7'(dpY t� r•'I 19t.`I 3 F{, f j i C IS' rr 1r, a ,o}$i tjj1 ���y�r�, p]f tt� I yf`qyt�/yr��r"tr t k� ai j �j{�!j' r{ !I'� j� �f��. � /.;■\/�� fk r ; i;r9it ' }lihp; i !r f1Y !k rl"yr'!�fp,H1„ F+at){,+. �1 Y',J '6R!3 !t rf if or y 4 .1lir s ni.,+ 1 , r! 9a r}.'.i. fF{tP }4.Nr ilsrif I. s 3` ,.4 is rrl �t! Fi ! 11 �iW"t `,1¢f ��! t':.0�.Isrr fP ttf Ij2 ,E e. kp d 'i 1 t11� , f K i r 4 ir�Q it to �� 1 � rp� , xi cr� ` x{1 r4 3N7"Y t r p d f i F "A F 1'I Ij I " IM r sl n]ri�� 'it n i>f 'S s !9 (•;ta, ,.,� t " rr .1 ,"n t I { "i w�l� jirrt,,. f rd CITY OF 0\��"l3 y SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 19, 1995 Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR• Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Christi Houser Paul Mann Leona Orr Jon Johnson CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Employee of the Month B. Proclamation - Pamela Dick Recognition Day C. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees D. Regional Justice Center Update 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stream Buffer Requirements in Meridian Annexation Area/Interim Zoning Control - ordinance B. School Impact Fees - Ordinance, Resolution and Interlocal Agreement 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. West Hill Plaza Rezone RZ-95-3 - Ordinance D. Glen Kara Preliminary Plat SU-95-3 - Set Meeting Date E. Council Absence F. Purchase of Replacement Defibrillators G. Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements H. Single Family Development Standards Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-8 - Ordinance I. Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement - Authorization J. Waste Reduction & Recycling Grant - Acceptance and Budget Change K. Duties of Police Chief - Ordinance L. Violation of a Protection Order - Ordinance M. Penalties for Certain Weapons Violations - Ordinance N. Beer Institute Assistance Fund Donation - Acceptance and Budget Change O. Springwood Grant - Acceptance and Budget Change P. Corrections Facility Food Service Agreement/Request for Extension Q. Safety Awards Contract Renewal R. Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Contract �V Renewal S. 1995 Accounts Receivable Write-off ' ->T. 1995 Budget Adjustment Ordinance and CDBG Line of Credit U. Carpinito Business Park - Bill of Sale V. 108th Avenue Walkway/274th Street Walkway - Accept as Complete W. Arts Commission Appointments X. Economic Development Corporation Reappointment CITY OF SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 3 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) Y. Mayor's Reappointments to Human Services Commission Z. Council President' s Reappointment to Human Services Commission AA. 1996 City Art Plan Budget and Five-Year Plat BB. Saturday Market Advisory Board - Ordinance CC. Street Utility Repeal and Substitute Utility Tax - Set Hearing Date 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-95-1 and Initial Zoning AZ-95-3 - Ordinances � 'Gf B. Adult Use Zoning ZCA-95-1 - Ordinance ` .'C -• � �-`i 4 ',`,` � (.1 C. Interlocal Agreement Between Kent and King County for Annexations D. Kosnoski Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-9 E. Comp Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment CPZ-95-2, (Phase II Valley Floor/West Hill) F. Property Tax Levy Amendment - Ordinance G. 1996 Budget Amendment - Ordinance H. Public Defender's Contract 5. BIDS A. 5-6 Yard Dump Trucks - Equipment Rental B. Gasoline and Incidental Supplies C. Interurban Trail Resurfacing Project 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION - 1) potential Litigation 2) property Acquisition 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. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call 1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (206) 854-6587 . �d1l 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. Employee of the Month B. Proclamation - Pamela Dick Day C. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees D. Regional Justice Center Update Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA/INTERIM ZONING CONTROL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Planning Committee, a stream buffer interim zoning control ordinance is being considered to preserve the existing stream buffers relating to major streams in the Meridian annexation area. The existing Kent zoning code requires a 50-foot setback from major streams for impervious surfaces. Under the County code, the setback for major streams is a 100-foot buffer, which prohibits uses of any kind except replanting indigenous Northwest vegeta- tion. The interim zoning ordinance would preserve the County development standards within the buffer area of major streams in the Meridian annexation area for up to six months. 3 . EXHIBITS: Planning Committee minutes of 11/21/95 and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO�_ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember &,`[,,v moves, Councilmember `Y1 seconds c. to adopt Ordinance No. �5 relating to Stream Buffer Requirements/Interim Zoning Control in the MeridJAn Annexation Area, as recommended by the Planning C �warn flt � DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A - City Council Planning Committee Minutes November 21, 1995 STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA - DRAFT INTERIM ZONING CONTROL ORDINANCE AND REGULAR DRAFT ORDINANCE - (T. Brubaker) Mr. Tom Brubaker explained the need to preserve the existing stream buffers relating to the major streams in the Meridian annexation area. In the existing Kent zoning code there is a 50 foot setback requirement for impervious surfaces. No impervious surfaces can be constructed within 50 feet of the high water mark of major streams. However,under the existing County code there is a 100 foot buffer which prohibits changes of any kind except replanting indigenous Northwest vegetation. Mr. Brubaker requested an interim zoning control. This would preserve the same development standards within the buffer area for up to six months. Mr. Bill Wolinski from the Public Works department explained that the King County buffers were established after a lot of research. Mr. Wolinski has received calls from King County and the Muckleshoot Indian tribe questioning Kent's plan for preserving the existing buffer requirements. Committee member Woods MOVED to send the proposed Ordinance to the City Council on December 12 under the consent calendar for a public hearing and Council's approval. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. The motion carried ADULT USE ZONING 4ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) Ms. Laurie Evezich presented the Committee with a copy of the proposed Ordinance and recommended that the Ordinance be brought before the City Council for approval. The proposed Ordinance is similar to the existing adult use zoning Ordinance with the exception that the existing set back restriction of 1,000 feet from any single family or residential use is eliminated to allow for a zoning for adult use businesses in commercial areas consistent with a U. S. District Court Order from earlier this year. This would establish at least 19 locations for adult use businesses. Chair Leona Orr questioned if the proposed Ordinance would satisfy the Court Order. Ms. Evezich explained that this amendment would allow adult use business to locate in the commercial district but it has the least amount of impact on protected areas. She further explained that the Law Department is confident that this Ordinance is defensible under the First Amendment analysis. Committee member Johnson MOVED to recommend to send the proposed adult use zoning Ordinance to the City Council under other business. Committee member Woods SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS #ZCA-95-2 & #SCA-95-1 (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips presented the Committee with an article and some examples of cluster housing developments. The main reason for proposing cluster development is to implement the 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent , Washington, establishing interim zoning controls relating to stream development standards in the Meridian Annexation Area . WHEREAS, the City has recently completed proceedings to annex a 5 . 2 square mile area lying east of the existing City limits, commonly known as the Meridian Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the Meridian Annexation shall become effective on January 1, 1996 ; and WHEREAS, the Meridian Annexation area . currently lies within unincorporated King County; and WHEREAS, three major tributaries to the Soos Creek drainage system, Soos Creek, Big Soos Creek, and Little Soos Creek lie within the City' s annexation area; and WHEREAS, these three tributaries constitute a significant part of a unique regional drainage system, providing valuable habitat for salmon and other plant and wildlife species ; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan King County' s development setbacks along these tributaries, known as "buffers , " establish more 1 effective protection for these tributaries ' systems than would be established under Kent City Code development standards ; and WHEREAS, various parties who deem themselves affected by this potential change in setback requirements have notified the City of their concerns' for the continued preservation of this important habitat area; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council intends to review this matter by holding a public hearing on a proposed zoning map and text amendment that will permanently preserve these established stream development standards, including without limitation, a 100 foot buffer requirement, on these tributaries in the Meridian Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to establish interim zoning -.. controls preserving these stream development standards in the Meridian Annexation Area until the City Council has had an opportunity to receive public input and more fully consider the impacts of preserving these development standards . NOW THEREFORE : THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Recitals Incorporated. ' The foregoing recitals are by this reference incorporated and made a part hereof . 2 S d Section 2. Findings and Conclusions . The Kent City Council finds as follows : A. Soos Creek, Big Soos Creek, and Little Soos Creek lying within the City' s Meridian Annexation Area, as shown on the -- map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, are part of a significant regional drainage network; B . This drainage network provides valuable and unique habitat for fish life, plant life, and wildlife within the Meridian Annexation Area and throughout the region; C. Existing City zoning that would apply to the Meridian Annexation Area would not provide the same level of stream protection as currently provided by Metropolitan King County' s development standards ; D . The City wishes to preserve the County' s development standards , including, without limitation, the County' s 25 and 100 foot buffer requirements, for an interim period while the City reviews creation and preservation of similar development standards, to the extent these areas lie within the City' s Meridian Annexation Area . Section 3 . Interim Zoning Control . There is hereby created an interim zoning control establishing the County' s development standards and provisions for Soos Creek, Little Soos Creek and Big Socs Creek within the City' s Meridian Annexation Area as enacted in chapter 21 . 54 of the Metropolitan King County Code . Kent City Code Sections 15 . 08 . 220-15 . 08 . 224 and the City' s "Hazard Area Development Limitations" Map are hereby modified during this interim zoning control period to the extent that they are inconsistent with this ordinance . Section 4. Exniration. These interim zoning controls shall be in effect as of January 1, 1996 , and shall remain in effect for six (6) months unless extended or shortened by action of the Kent City Council . Section 5. ' Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable . The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion -of this ordinance,. or the invalidity of the application thereof to any .person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances . Section 6. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY _.- Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance relates to school impact fees, establishes a framework for the adoption of a school impact fee program by the City; requires the execution of an interlocal agreement between the City and any school district located in the City and requests to participate in the school impact fee program; provides for the adoption of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan; allows collection of school impact fees by the City on new development impacting schools; provides the formula for fee calculation and a fee schedule; describes the procedures for credit, appeals, and refunds; all as authorized by the Growth Management Act and Chapter 82 . 02 RCW; amends Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new chapter 12 . 13 and sets an effective date. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, agreement, minutes, and resolution 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds „1,✓;f1. to adopt Ordinance No. it ` relating to school impact fees, A" 2 . to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed interlocal agreement relating to school impact fees in substantially the same form as the proposed agreement, .and--- 7 3 . t ad t solution No. rela-tjzM\ to cp erati on of ca it usi gexe pobi to. school_impact fees. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Committee member Clark questioned if the proposed Accessory Housing amendment had a requirement within it for off-street parking. He also asked if there would be any conflict with the accessory housing and the request to amend the development standards in regard to the minimum lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that there is a section that stipulates that driveways must be 20 feet long. Ms. Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, questioned whether the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements are documented somewhere by the Public Works Department. Ms. Evezich mentioned that if there is a traffic plan that is going to be the basis for the Public Works Department requiring a setback or a right of way requirement, then that language needs to be included in the Zoning Code Amendment. The verbiage will be added to the draft Ordinance to indicate what documentation- will be used to approve or disapprove setback requirements. Committee member Johnson MOVED to approve and send to the full Council the single family development standards zoning code amendment on November 21, 1995. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Clark. Chair Orr clarified if the motion included the identification of the documentation that will be used by the Public Works Department. Committee member Johnson confirmed that his motion did include such documentation. The motion carried. ADULT USE ZONING 9ZCA-9-5-3 - (R. Lubovich) The City Attorney's office received copies of existing Ordinances from other jurisdictions. Ms. Evezich will provide the Committee with a legislative history from those jurisdictions at the next meeting for action. None of those jurisdictions have a 1,000 foot buffer from a legal nonconforming residential use in a commercial area but rather all of their restrictions address residential in terms of a district or a zone. Incorporated into the findings will be a support of a recommendation for a zoning code change to eliminate the 1,000 foot setback nonconforming residential uses. SCHOOL IMPACT FE ORDINANCE - (L. Evezich) Mr. Rodger Anderson from the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th NE, Kirkland. Mr. Anderson is proposing an exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance to accommodate low income housing. He presented the Committee an example of an exemption currently in place in Bainbridge Island. Chair Orr recommended continuing with the adoption of the existing Ordinance and then have the Council take a look at the possible exemption during the next six months. Ms. Evezich recommended a Resolution to indicate the Planning Committee would consider the proposed exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance during the next six months. Mr. Fred High,Kent School District. Mr. High commented on the exemption for the School Impact Fee Ordinance for low income housing. Mr. High discussed the reasoning behind requesting the mitigation fees. He presented the committee with a cost analysis demonstrating the average costs that are generated to the schools with each new single family residence. 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Ms. Jody Putnam, Federal Way School District, commented that approximately less than 5% of the City of Kent stretches into the Federal Way School District. The Federal Way School District is in the process of negotiating with the City of Federal Way to introduce an Impact Fee Ordinance. Ms. Putnam stated that the cost to build the schools necessary as population grows is a lot more than what is collected from the School Impact fees. She emphasized that the impact fees help to get the new schools built. Ms. Grace Yuam, attorney for the Kent School District. Ms. Yuam represents nine King County School Districts and works with the districts to develop school impact fees. Ms. Yuam voiced her support for the school impact fees and offered to answer any questions that the Committee may have on this issue. Mr. Brooks Fenton, Trinity Reformed Church, questioned whether the life of the school was taken into consideration for the calculation of the impact fees. Ms. Yuam explained to Mr. Fenton that the life of the school had been taken into consideration. She went on to explain the impact fee formula. Ms. Evezich questioned Ms. Yuam if any of the schools in the districts she represents has any experience with low income housing exemption. Ms. Yuam explained that there is an exception in place in unincorporated King County however; it is a different from the exemption in Bainbridge Island. Committee member Clark MOVED to forward the Ordinance concerning the school impact fees to the City Council on November 21, 1995. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to create a Resolution to address the exemption for low income housing during the six months after the Ordinance is in effect. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to enter into an Interlocal agreement with the Federal Way and Kent school districts for collecting impact fees on behalf of both school districts. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. C:\USERS\DOC\PCOMVvIINUTES\NOV07.WPD 4 ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington relating to school impact fees ; establishing a framework for the adoption of a school impact fee program by the City; requiring the execution of an interlocal agreement between the City and school districts located within the City requesting to participate in the school impact fee program; providing for the adoption of school district capital facilities plans as an element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan; allowing collection of impact fees by the City on new development impacting school facilities ; providing the formula for calculation of the fee schedule; describing the procedures for credit, appeal and refunds ; all as authorized by the Growth Management Act , RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 100 ; amending Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter 12 . 13 ; and setting a date when the same shall be effective . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent finds that adequate school facilities should be provided to serve the student population generated from new development in the City; and WHEREAS, to ensure that school facilities are available to accommodate expected growth when needed, the Council recognizes the cost of new school facilities must be shared by the public and private sectors, and the proportionate share of the expense of school facilities necessitated by the impacts of new development should be borne by developers through the imposition of school impact fees as authorized by the Growth Management Act (RCW 82 . 02 . 050 - 82 . 02 . 1 00) ; and WHEREAS , an organized framework must be adopted for the determination and analysis of the school district ' s need for - impact fees to partially fund school facilities necessitated by new development , and to allow the imposition and collection of those fees by the school- district pursuant to the Growth Management Act and all other applicable law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . There is hereby added a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 12 . 13 , entitled "School Impact Fees, " to read as follows . CHAPTER 12 .13 . SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Sec . 12 . 13 . 010 . Findings and Authority. The City Council of the City of Kent hereby finds and determines that continuing growth and development in the City of Kent will create additional demand and need for school facilities, and the Council finds that the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development . Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82 . 02 RCW, the Council adopts this Chapter to assess school impact fees . The provisions of this title shall be liberally construed in order to carry out _.. the purposes of the Council in establishing the school impact fee program. Sec. 12 . 13 . 020 . Definitions . For purposes of this ordinance , the following terms shall have the indicated meanings : A. "Capacity" means the number of students the District ' s facilities can accommodate district-wide, based on the District ' s standard of service, as determined by the District . B . "Capital Facilities Plan" means the District ' s facilities plan adopted by the school board consisting of : 1 . a forecast of future needs for school facilities based on the District ' s enrollment projections ; 2 . an identification of additional demands placed on existing public facilities by new development ; 3 . the long-range construction and capital improvement projects of the District ; 4 . the schools under construction or expansion; 5 . the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new school facilities ; 6 . an inventory of existing school facilities , including permanent , transitional and relocatable facilities ; 7 . at least a six year financing component , updated as necessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period, for financing needed for school facilities within projected funding levels, and identifying sources of financing for such purposes, including bond issues authorized by the voters ; and 8 . an identification of deficiencies in school facilities serving the student populations and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time; and 9 . any other long-range projects planned by the District . C . "City" means the City of Kent . D. "Classrooms" means educational facilities of the District required to house students for its basic educational program. The classrooms are those facilities the District determines are necessary to best serve its student population. Specialized facilities as identified by the District, including but not limited to gymnasiums , cafeterias, libraries , administrative offices, and 4 child care centers , shall not be counted as classrooms . E . "Construction Cost Per Student" means the cos-_ of construction of a permanent school facility in the Distric-: for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of tie District ' s design standard per grade span. F . "Design Standard" means the space required, :-_ =rade span and taking into account the requirements of students special needs , which is needed in order to fulfill the educational goals of the District as identified in the D_ - - =ct ' s capital facilities plan . G. "District" means any school district whose boundaries include, in whole or in part, areas of the City of Kent . H. "Developer" means the person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property for which development activity is proposed. I . "Development Activity" means any residential construction or expansion of a building, structure or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land that creates additional demand for school facilities . J. "Elderly" means a person aged 62 or older. 5 K. "Encumbered" means impact fees identified by the District as being committed as part of the funding for a school facility for which the publicly funded share has been assured or building permits sought or construction contracts let . L. " Interlocal Agreement" means the agreement between the District and the City, governing the operation of the school impact fee program and describing the relationship, duties and liabilities of the parties . M. "Grade Span" means the categories into which the District groups its grade of students ; i .e . , elementary, middle or junior high school , and high school . N. "Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and development , that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities , that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities , and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development . " Impact Fee" does not include a reasonable permit or application fee . O. " Impact Fee Schedule" means the table of impact fees to be charged per unit of development , computed by the formula 6 adopted under this ordinance, indicating the standard fe_ _.-aunt per dwelling unit that shall be paid as a condition of residential development within the City. P . "Permanent Facilities" means facilities of t' District with a fixed foundation which are not relocatable facilities . Q . "Relocatable Facilities" means any factory-built structure, transportable in one or more sections that is designed to be used as an education space and is needed to preven the overbuilding of school facilities , to meet the needs of service areas within the District or to cover the gap between the time that families move into new residential developments and the date that construction is completed on permanent school facilities . R. "Relocatable Facilities Cost Per Student " means the estimated cost of purchasing and siting a relocatable facility in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District ' s design standard per grade span. S . "Site Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of a site in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District ' s design standard per grade span. 7 T. "Standard of Service" means the standard adopted by the District which identifies the program year, the class size by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs, the number of classrooms, the types of - facilities the District believes will best serve its student population, and other factors as identified by the District . The District ' s standard of service shall not 'be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable facilities which are used as transitional facilities or any other specific facilities housed in relocatable facilities . U. "Student Factor" means the number derived by the District to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit . Student factors shall be based on District records of average actual student generated rates for new developments constructed over a pericd of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation; provided that , if such information is not available in the District , data from adjacent districts , or districts with - similar demographics or county wide averages may be used. Student factors must be updated on an annual basis , and separately determined for single family and multi-family dwelling units and for grade spans . - s V. "Transitional Facilities" means those school facilities that are being used pending the constructl-In of permanent facilities , provided that the necessary financial commitments are in place to construct the permanent f=.cilities . Sec. 12 . 13 . 030 . Impact fee - applicability. Impact fees, based on the impact fee schedule adopted by the City Council, using the District ' s Capital Facilities Plan, shall be applied to all forms of development activitv requiring City review and approval where such requires the issuance of a residential building permit . The impact fees shall be assessed for each dwelling unit , including manufactured homes, at the time of permit application, and shall be collected when the permit is issued as provided for in this chapter. Sec. 12 . 13 . 040 . Exemptions . The following Development Activities do not create any additional school impacts and are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance : A. Reconstruction, remodeling or construction of the following facilities , subject to the recording of a covenant or recorded declaration of restrictions precluding use of the property for other than the exempt purpose . Provided, that if 9 the property is used for a non-exempt purpose, then the school impact fees then in effect shall be paid. 1 . Shelters or dwelling units for temporary placement , which provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than four weeks . 2 . Construction or remodeling of transitional housing facilities or dwelling units that provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than twenty-four (24) months, in connection with job training, self-sufficiency training and human services counseling, the purpose of which is to help persons make the transition from homelessness to placement in permanent housing. 3 . Any form of housing for the elderly, including nursing homes, retirement centers, and any type of housing units for persons age 55 and over, which have recorded covenants or recorded declaration of restrictions precluding school-aged children as residents in those units . B . Rebuilding of legally established dwelling unit (s) destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, explosion, act of God or other accident or catastrophe, or remodeling of existing legally established dwelling unit (s) , provided that such rebuilding takes 10 place within a period of one year after destruction, and so long as no additional dwelling units are created. C . Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are converted into condominium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created. D. Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 100 , due tc mitigation of the same system improvement under the State Environmental Policy Act . E . Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant to a condition of plat or PUD approval to pay fees, dedicate land or construct or improve school facilities , unless the condition of the plat or PUD approval provides otherwise : provided that the condition of the plat or PUD approval predates the effective date of fee imposition. F. Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant to a voluntary agreement entered into with the District to pay fees, dedicate land or construct or improve school facilities , unless the terms of the voluntary agreement provide otherwise provided that the agreement predates the effective date of fee imposition. 11 Sec . 12 . 13 . 050 . Interlocal agreement between the City and District . As a condition of the City' s authorization and adoption_ of a school impact fee ordinance, the City and District shall enter into an interlocal agreement governing the operation of the school impact fee program, and describing the relationship and liabilities of the parties thereunder . Sec . 12 . 13 . 060 . Submission of District Capital Facilities Plan and Data. A. On an annual basis , the District shall submit the following materials to the City Council : 1 . The District ' s capital facilities plan (as defined in Section 12 . 13 . 010 herein) and adopted by the school board; 2 . The District ' s enrollment projections over the next six (6) years , its current enrollment and the district ' s enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3 . The District ' s standard of service; 4 . The District ' s overall capacity over the next six (6) years , which shall take into account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the District but not 12 yet built and be a function of the District ' s standard c= -=--vice as measured by the number of students which can be housed L. District facilities . S . An inventory of the District ' s exist- - facilities . B . To the extent that the District ' s standard service identifies a deficiency in its existing facili _es , the District ' s capital facilities plan must identify the scu--cz�s of funding other than impact fees, for building or acquiring he necessary facilities to serve the existing student pepula__icn in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable c riod of time . C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be desicned to meet the adopted standard of service . If sufficient fundinc is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the District ' s capital Facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the District plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service . D . The District shall also submit an annual report to the City Council showing the capital improvements which were serviced in whole or in part by the impact fees . U E . In its development of the Financing Plan Component of the Capital Facilities Plan, the District shall plan on a six-year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps : 1 . Establish a six-year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as approved by "the school board consistent with RCW 28A. 53 . 020 , RCW 84 . 52 . 052 and . 056 as amended; and 2 . Apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of the District ' s ability. Sec. 12 . 13 . 070 . Annual Council Review. On at least an annual basis, the City Council shall review the information submitted by the District pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 060 (A) herein. The review shall occur in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. Sec. 12 . 13 . 080 . Impact Fee Program Elements . A. Impact fees will be assessed on every new dwelling unit in the District for which a fee schedule has been established. -- 14 B . Impact fees will be imposed on a district-by- district basis , on behalf of any school district which provides to the City, a capital facilities plan, the District ' s standards of service for the various grade spans , estimates of the cost of providing needed facilities and other capital improvements, and the data from the District called for by the formula in Section 12 . 13 . 140 . Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development . The impact fee formula shall account in the fee calculation for future revenue the District will receive from the development . The ordinance adopting the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness . C . The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the District and approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the City as part of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program. Sec . 12 . 13 . 090 . Fee Calculations . A. The fee shall be calculated based on the formula set out in Section 12 . 13 . 140 . 15 B . Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi-family types of dwelling units , and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of dwelling unit . For the purpose of this ordinance, mobile homes shall be treated as single family dwellings and duplexes shall be treated as multi-family dwellings. C . The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and data to be supplied by the District , as indicated in Section 12 . 13 . 140 . The fee calculations shall also be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District used currently or within the last two years for instructional purposes. D . The formula in Section 12 . 13 . 140 provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the District . E . The formula also provides for a credit for school - facilities or sites actually provided by a developer which the District finds acceptable . F . The City may also impose an application fee to cover the reasonable costs of administration of the impact fee program. 16 Sec . 12 . 13 .100 . Fee Collection. At the time of application for a residential building permit at the City, the school impact fee shall be imposed based on the impact fee schedule using the capital facilities plan adopted by the City. The impact fee and the application fee shall be collected by the City, and maintained in separate accounts . All school impact fees shall be paid to the District from the school impact fee account monthly. The City shall retain all application fees associated with the City' s administration of the impact fee program. Sec . 12 .13 . 110 . Assessment of Impact Fees . A. For residential developments located in school districts where impact fees have been adopted by city ordinance, the City shall collect impact fees based upon the schedule set forth in Section 12 . 13 . 140 , and shall be collected by the City from any applicant where such development activity requires issuance of a residential building permit or a mobile home permit . 2 . For application for single family and multi-family residential building permits and mobile home permits , the total amount of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected from 17 the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the impact fee schedules then in effect . C. The City shall not issue the required building permit or mobile home permit unless and until the impact fees set forth in the impact fee schedule have been paid. Sec. 12 . 13 .120 . Determination of the Fee, Adjustments, Exceptions and Appeals . A. The City shall determine a developer' s impact fee, - based upon the schedule provided by the District . B . Arrangement may be made for later payment of the impact fee with the approval of the District only if the District determines that it will be unable to use or will not need the payment until a later time, provided that sufficient security, as defined by the District , is provided to assure payment . Security shall be made to and held by the District , which will be - responsible for tracking and documenting the security interest . C . The fee amount established in the schedule shall be reduced by the amount of any payment previously made for the lot or development activity in question, either as a condition of approval or pursuant to a voluntary agreement . D . Whenever a developer is granted approval subject to a condition that the developer actually provide a school facility 18 acceptable to the District , the developer shall be entitled to a credit for the actual cost of providing the facility, against the fee that would be chargeable under the formula provided by this ordinance . The cost of construction shall be estimated at the time of approval, but must be documented, and the documentation confirmed after the construction is completed to assure that an accurate credit amount is provided: If construction costs are less than the calculated fee amount, the difference remaining shall be chargeable as a school impact fee . E . The standard impact fees may be adjusted, if one of - the following circumstances exist, provided that the discount set forth in the fee formula fails to adjust for the error in the calculation or fails to ameliorate for the unfairness of the fee : 1 . The developer demonstrates that an impact fee assessment was improperly calculated; or 2 . Unusual circumstances identified by the developer demonstrate that if the standard impact fee amount was applied to the development , it would be unfair or unjust . F. In cases where a developer requests an independent fee calculation, adjustment exception or a credit pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 060 (3 ) , the City shall consult with the District and the 19 District shall advise the City prior to the City making the final impact fee determination. G. A developer may provide studies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor used by the District may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal . K. Any appeal of the decision of the City with regard to fee amounts shall follow the process for the appeal of the underlying development application, as set forth in Kent City Code . Any errors in the formula identified as a result of the appeal should be referred to the Council for possible modification. I . Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a residential building permit or a mobile home permit . Sec . 12 . 13 . 130 . Impact Fee Accounts and Refunds . A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by the District solely for the District ' s school impact fees . All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which impact fees were imposed. Annually, the District , based in part on its report prepared pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 060 , shall prepare a report on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys 20 collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees . The District shall submit a copy of this report to the City Council . The City shall maintain separate school impact fee and administration fee accounts pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 110 , and shall prepare a report on the source and amount of all school impact fees collected and transferred to the District . B . Impact fees for the District ' s system improvements shall be expended by the District only in conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the comprehensive plan. - C . Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered by the District for a permissible use within six (6) years of receipt by the District , unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six (6) years . Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified to the City by the District in a written report . The City Council shall identify the District ' s extraordinary and compelling reasons for the fees to be held longer than six (6) years in the Council ' S own written findings . D . The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expended or encumbered within six (6) years of 21 receipt of the funds by the District on school facilities intended to benefit the development activity for which the impact fees were paid. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis . The District shall notify potential claimants by first-class mail deposited with the United States postal service addressed to the owner of the property as' shcwn in the County tax records . E . An owner' s request for a refund must be submitted to the District in writing within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever date is later. Any impact fees that are not expended or encumbered by the District in conformance with the capital facilities plan within these time limitations , and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one (1) year period, shall be retained and expended consistent with the provisions of this section. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees . F . Should the City seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements , all unexpended or unencumbered funds , including interest earned, shall be refunded to the current owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of the refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to the owner of the property as s-own in the County tax records . All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one (1) year. At the end of cn-a (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the District , but must be expended by the District , consistent with the provisions of this Section. The notice requirement set forth above shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances with the account or accounts being terminated. G. A developer may request and shall receive refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when: 1 . The developer does not proceed to finalize the development activity as required by statute or City Code including the Uniform Building Code; and 2 . No impact on the District has resulted. " Impact" shall be deemed to include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund. In the event that the District has expended or encumbered the tees in good faith, no refund shall_ be 2; forthcoming . However, if within a period of three (3) years , the -. same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner shall be eligible for a credit . The owner must petition the District and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof . The District shall determine whether to grant a credit , and such determinations may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in Section 12 . 13 . 120 above . H. Interest due upon the refund of impact fees reauired by this Section shall be calculated according to the average amount received by the District on invested funds throughout the period during which the fees were retained. Sec . 12 . 13 . 140 . Formula for Determining School Impact Fees . A. School Impact Fees shall be determined as follows : IF : A = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X site " cost per student for sites for facilities in that grade spar_ = Full Cost Fee for site acquisition cost D = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X school construction cost per student for facilities in that grade span X ratio of District ' s square footage of permanent facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full Cost Fee for school construction 24 C = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X relocatable facilities cost per student for facilities in that grade span X ratio of District ' s square footage of relocatable facilities to total square footage of facilities = Full Cost Fee . for relocatable facilities D = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span "Bceckh Index" X SPI Square Ft LDer student factor X state match o = State Match Credit, and Al, B1, C1, D1 = A, B, C, D for Elementary grade spans A2 , B2 , C2 , D2 = A, B, C, ' D, for Middle/junior hiq?i grade spans A3 , 23 , C3 , D3 = A, B, C, D for High School grade s_.,:_�s TC = Tax payment credit = The net present value of th_ -rage Assessed Value in the District for Unit Type X Curren- School District Capital Property Tax Levy Rate, using a 10 year discount period and current interest rate (based on the Bond Buy:. 'wenty Bond General Obligation Bond Index) FC= Facilities Credit = The per-dwelling-unit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the development THEN the unfunded need = UN=Al+ . . . +C3 - (Di-D'' -D3 ) -TC AND the developer fee obligation = F=UN/2 AND the net fee obligation = NF = F-FC B . Notes to Formula. 1 . Student Factors are to be provided by the District based on District records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation; if such information is not available in the District , data from adjacent districts , 25 districts with similar demographics , or countywide averages must be used. Student factors must be separately determined for single family and multi-family dwelling units , and for grade spans . 2 . The "Boeckh index" is a construction trade index of construction costs for various kinds of buildings ; it is adjusted annually. 3 . The District is to provide its own site and facilities standards and projected costs to be used in the formula, consistent with the requirements of this ordinance . 4 . The formula can be applied by using the following table : 26 H H C7 ^ Z V] H [-4 a H a w Ca a II II II II II _ II II II II II II II a H H 4-7 w W H � O C u 'd O 41 U � 75 m L k Q U m �l L) 44 k m z z ro w m 4-I m r: N Q I~ O N N 0 O v 2S U 41 4J X m Czj 'O ro k 41 N -�j m N Z � U N U) 4� -H S-I O N N r H F1 N ..' S� � � CY tS � U -� U 0 -Lia � x m m m ro „ Ha x U -Li m 4- H m o 4A X m m 0 U z 4-1 u a wo 41 � ro li -A m ro 4 114 1J U] ul X m O 4-4 -ri U OU E 4-4 E� O m O U 4J O U ro v 0 �-I U QJ 0 m 44 >1 a Q N Q 'o C. O �' 44 � 44N -�ri 4-+ m Q4 o o U o a -H o � m m U O N ro U N �D m O U U 0 ro N 0 a U 0 U �-i N ro 4-4 -Li 0 44 ro w U a) �4 4-1C t� m U -Li O N Q4 m 0 0 0 U O N 0 0 W -H i O � 0 0 A 4- .H m m O U U N }4 (d m o U Q) � � a b z H U m c ro m 0 -ri N O 'r-I Ul O -H O a o x �j o x ro o x H ro c o m �4 v m a s U �4 m U U 0 U o o 0 UM m o m O k m ,.) 0 li k '' -H r-i .�4 r-I U -H U r-I >1 rl O > C O ^ ?1 m G (6 0 U rxC �4 � O Sa � O (n S u-I � 4� 0 N h 'r, r) ro h CO ro h U a, O 4..) U < t 1� U + + O p r� N CJ) + 4 N S4 M N �-I (N W Q) ri N N O r-i 0 W N N r-I N O U E 27 : FC E ii rc5 41 -(:� + E ro 'o ro �rl li + W N ro C51 + N U ro U C l f-i N �j 'O �l bl U rl H ri (6 -ri ro -li m r-f .0 •H -Lj -ri ro U 4-I 4-4 x W m m tV L-1 H II II II II it II II II II ri N Cl) II H N M II H N C7 II r r� FC CO 0.1 CU CO U U U U X 0 G H c O 0 �4 p j C U 0 N � j b� U Z r Sl > LL > 00 N M w a �4 G p rt 3 C U O G Nco � C7 N G4 W 0 zS 0 N m Ei N E r a' W ? 0 0 O O r J 4-7 4-4 4-4 v 3 d '1 I~ C) C 3 N Ql O C5 N �3 �l U �5 J �4 N oc m S m w m v > •� J N 0 0 Q R + ?-I U S-I 44 0 p 0 > Ql U (D C: N �-4 ri ..i r 0 N N N r N m m W ZD aS p 00 U ro ro m m > N O 'cl O X O O ro 0 :� O G y 0 L 4 L-) 4-I o\o 44 U m U m m m z U N N .Cj 47 4-I N " C:I (15 o\ �4 N U G 7 E b" N + L M C4 M 04 m }-4 ri L-i ro C z � m X > 0rc; 0 3 X N X X 0 U u X o\o .c. all W X x X X U " :1 N G Ql .� m ca --� N m CS O ro U ;-, m Z J � LL4 t t E r?:j O a X O QJ c� -r! + N+ w j ZO U O U . U C] + C 1-30 Q � U � U 1 1 M + ri m r-I U =� r' A 0 U 0 -+ O L r N C j p U] C 1 p m Gl x > W C3 II I I II II I I L -(J p SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: - ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of , 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No . passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , 29 Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon - indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK schlimpc.ord 30 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1995, by and between the City of Kent (the "City" hereinafter) and the Kent School District (the "District" hereinafter). WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, and Chapter 82.02 RCW (the "Act" hereinafter), which authorizes the imposition of impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities. which financing must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of public finds: and WHEREAS, the Act allows the collection and expenditure of impact fees only on public facilities which are addressed by a capital facilities element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted under the Act; and WHEREAS, the District has prepared a capital facilities plan, and authorization to collect and expend fees is contingent upon the City's adopting the District's Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, all as required by RCW 36.70A.070, and on the plan's adherence with the statutory requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. (the "school impact fee ordinance"). which describes the features of the school impact fee program, and allows the District to receive and expend the school impact fees in conformance with the Act, and WHEREAS, the City and the District have entered into this Interlocal Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the school impact fee program. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows: I. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT The District, by and through its officials, employees, agents and representatives, agrees to: A. Annuaily submit to the City a six-year capital facilities plan or an update of the previously adopted plan, together with an impact fee schedule, which meets the requirements of the Act and the school impact fee ordinance on or before April I st of each year. In addition, the District shall submit all other information required by Section 6(A) of the school impact fee ordinance. B. Assist the City if the school impact fees are challenged. -1- C. Establish and maintain impact fee accounts, as required by RCW 82.02.070. D. Prepare a report to the City to allow the City to meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.070(1) and submit such report to the City on or before April 1 of each year, showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. E. Provide for proper expenditure,of impact fees, as provided in RCW 82.02.050(4) and 82.02.070(2). F. Encumber or expend impact fees as provided in RCW 82.02.070(3), and where the District has extraordinary and compelling reasons for noncompliance with this statute, the District shall identify such reasons in written findings, to the City Council. G. Notify property owners of refunds under RCW 82.02.080 and the processing and payment of any refunds, together with any interest which may be due. H. Review all covenants and declaration of restrictions for form, as these documents are required to maintain exemptions from payment of impact fees. I. Maintain all accounts and records necessary to ensure compliance with this Agreement. the school impact fee ordinance and all other applicable law. H. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY The City, by and through its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives, agrees to: A. Be responsible for all administrative aspects of the impact fee program. including: 1. the determination, pursuant to the school impact fee ordinance, whether or not residential development activity in the City is exempt from payment of fees. 2. the calculation of the fee amount for any non-exempt residential development activity, based upon the schedule of fees adopted by the City pursuant to the school impact fee ordinance: 3. the receipt of the fees from the applicant; 4. imposition and collection of the administrative or permit application fees associated with the impact fee program and the development activity. B. Establish and maintain school impact fee accounts pursuant to RCW 82.02.070, so that impact fees can be transferred to the District on a monthly basis. C. Develop a report on the school impact fee account as required by RC W 82.02.070(1), and review of the District's report required by RCW 82.02.050(4), detailing the fees received and the system improvements financed in whole or in part by the fees. D. When City permits have been applied for, enforce covenants or declaration of covenants and restrictions,where the same have been executed as a condition of exemption from school impact fees. When permits are not applied for, the City shall advise the District of any potential enforcement action, and the District will elect whether to take enforcement action at its expense or to reimburse the City for the City's cost of enforcement. III. AUDIT A. The District's records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection.review or audit, by the City or appropriate state agency. B. The District agrees to cooperate with any monitoring or evaluation activities conducted by the City that pertain to the subject of this Agreement. The District agrees to allow the City or appropriate state agencies and/or any of their employees, agents or representatives, to have full access to and the right to examine, audit, make excerpts or transcripts, during normal business hours. all of the District's records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The City_ shall provide days advance notice to the District of fiscal audits to be conducted. IV. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS A. The District shall, at its own cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the District. its officers, employees or agents, relating to the District's implementation of the school impact fee program,performance of the duties set forth in paragraph I of this Agreement, or compliance with the terms of Ordinance No. all as Miav be a,mcnded from time to time. This indemnification by the District of the City shall include, but not be limited to: 1. The District's responsibility to refund any fees with interest, which are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been improperly paid, regardless of whether the City erroneously required the fee amount; 2. The District's agreement not to impose any liability on the City for the City's failure to collect the proper fee amount or any fee from a developer conducting any development activity, provided that the City shall make reasonable attempts to collect such fee. B. The District shall. at its own cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments, or awards of damages, resulting from a challenge to the legality of Ordinance No. or resulting from any claim for compensation under Initiative 164 or similar legislation; provided however, that if the District offers to Defend, the District shall not be liable for any of the City's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made. C. The District further agrees that the District shall, at its own costs and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages arising out of or in any way resulting from the District's failure to refund impact fees, or interest on such impact fees, including but not limited to a determination that impact fees from development activity that was not completed are not refundable because the hinds were expended or encumbered by the District whether or not the District's determination was made in good faith; provided however, that if the District offers to defend, the District shall not be liable for any of the Citv_ 's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made. D. The District's duties to the City tinder this Section shall not be diminished or extinguished by the prior termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section V. E. Except as provided in paragraphs A, B and C, the City shall, at its own cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, or agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages. arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the City, its officers, employees or agents, relating to the City's implementation of the school impact fee program, performance of the duties set forth in Paragraph II of this Agreement, or the terms of Ordinance No. , all as may be amended from time to time: provided however, that if the City offers to defend, the City shall not be liable for any of the District's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made, and provided further that the District shall promptly refund any fees as required by a final court order including payment of any pre- or postjudgment interest. F. The City's duties to the District under this Section shall not be diminished or extinguished by prior termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section V. V. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TEW IINATION A. The District's authorization to receive impact fees under this Agreement may be terminated without cause by the City, in whole or in part, at any time, but only upon the repeal or invalidation of Ordinance No. . All other obligations under this Agreement shall remain in effect until both of the following conditions have been satisfied: 1. the City or the District provides written notice that this Agreement is being terminated: and -4- 2. the District no longer retains unexpended or unencumbered impact te.a and interest earned thereon. The obligations under Section IV, Indemnification, shall be continuing and shall r.ot be diminished or extinguished by the termination of this Agreement. B. The District shall have the duty to ensure that upon termination of this Agreemen . any remaining unexpended or unencumbered impact fees and interest earned thereon are either p,o pert% expended or refunded pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW. C. Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided u:is Agreement or by law that either party may have in the event that the obligations, ter: �nd conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. VI. MODIFICATION No changes or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either part.. ..nle.• such changes or modifications are in writing and executed by both parties. VIL INTEGRATION This Agreement,together with the school impact fee ordinance, contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon the by parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to bind either party. VIII. SEVERABILITY In the event that anv term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications of this Agreement which can be Given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. IX. RIGHTS OF OTHER PARTIES It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and conveys no right to any other party. X. DISPUTES Jurisdiction of any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in King County Superior Court. and the substantially prevailing parry shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attome,s' fees. -5- XI. GOVERNING LAW AND FILING This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by,the laws of the State of Washington. This Agreement shall become effective following occurrence of the following: A. Approval of the Agreement by the official action of the governing bodies of each of the parties hereto; B. Execution of the Agreement by the duly authorized representative of each of the parties hereto; C. The filing of a copy of this Agreement with the following public officials: 1. The City Clerk of the City of Kent; 2. The Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Kent School District; and 3. The King County Records and Elections Division. XII. ADMINISTRATION A. The City's representative for purposes of administering this Agreement is: the City Administrator or his/her designee. B. The District's representative for purposes of administering this Agreement is: the Superintendent or his/her designee. -6- XIII. WAIVER OF DEFAULT Waiver of any default in the performance of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of the Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year set forth below. THE CITY OF KENT: KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Bv: By: Its Its APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK. -7- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me,and said person acknowledged that(he/she) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the City of Kent to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My Commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that(he/she) signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the Kent School District to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My Commission expires: -8- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to school impact fees; resolving to consider a low income housing exemption from school impact fees assessment. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Chapter 82 . 02 RCW authorize the enactment of a school impact fee program for the collection of fees from new development which impact schools; and WHEREAS, RCW 82 . 02 . 060 (2) specifically authorizes local governments to include a low income housing exemption within a school imipact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent supports the consideration of a low income housing exemption; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. To send to the Planning Committee the matter of a low income housing exemption to school impact fees and to report back to the full City Council within six (6) months. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1995 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1995. JIM WHITE, 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 1995 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 4 CONSENT CALENDAR N 3 . Cit Co ncil Action: / Counci member move, Councilmember !' fA second that Consent Calendar Items A through be approved w� Discussion Action �n �} AY 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 21, 1995. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through November 15 and paid on November 15, 1995, after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 22, 1995. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/15/95 161706-162181 $1,855, 300. 08 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 1 through November 15 and paid on November 20, 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/20/95 Checks 207446-207771 $ 267,786. 52 Advices 29123-29527 532 , 517.59 $ 800, 304. 11 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington November 21, 1995 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Division Director Miller. Approxi- mately 120 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Paul Mann Month. Mayor White read a proclama- COMMUNICATIONS tion declaring the month of December, 1995 a=_ Paul Mann Month in the City of Kent, and he urged all citizens in the City to join in thanking Mr. Mann for his dedicated service. He then presented the proclamation to Mr. Mann. Mr. Mann said he is deeply humbled and grateful for the honor bestowed upon him. He expressed appreciation to all City staff and noted that zhe City of Kent is fortunate to have men and women of integrity who want the best for the citizens cr Kent. He said it has been an honor to serve wLth the present Councilmembers, and that his legac for the City of Kent is his vision for the future as seen through the youth. He challenged the Council to not lose its focus on the youth, and said that serving the youth is a distinct honer as well as essential for the health and well-being of the community. He expressed his hope that t,_-, Council will continue to work for a skateboar_-_� park and ultimately a fully functional facil__'_y for the youth, which will provide a safe place for after school hours. He also noted that he hopes the Council will continue to give special con- sideration to the seniors of our City to insure for them the standard of living they deserve, He expressed hope that the Council will continu_ to demonstrate compassion by working with the various agencies who address the human service needs of the community. Mr. Mann then introduced hi3 family, and said that it has been an honor co serve the City of Kent over the past eight '_ears and a privilege to serve with the Council. Mayor White invited citizens and staff to join the Council for a reception in honor of Councilmember Mann at 6 : 30 p.m. , December 12th, prior to she Council meeting, in the lobby of City Hall. -1 November 21, 1995 PUBLIC Chamber of Commerce Presentation. Barbara Ivancv, COMMUNICATIONS Executive Director of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Mayor and Council for their support of the Asia-Pacific Trade Exchange which was held on November 1st and 2nd. She gave a brief preliminary report, noting that all the companies involved did better than ever and that eight companies have reported back with over $6 million in deals generated over those two days. She noted that the number of U. S . exhibitors grew from 34 to 48 this year, the sponsor groups grew from 14 to 25, and that the APEC economies in- volved, including the United States, grew from 5 to 7 . She again thanked the Council for their support, presence, initiation of the ribbon- cutting of the new foreign trade zone at Alexander Trading Company, and greeting all of the guests. She noted that the Mayor had won a very pres- tigious award given by the Green River Community College in support of international trade rela- tions, and the sister city relationships that everyone has contributed toward. Ms. Ivanov then introduced Rod Cannon, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and Tom Wood, Treasurer. Mr. Cannon noted that the volunteers are important to the Chamber and that Christi rlouser alas --een as %+ic' -,j- . n-aer of the - Month for November, 1995 by the Kent Chamber of Commerce and zne Board of Directors Tor ner efforts on behalf of the Asian-Pacific Trade Exchange and her work in the Philippines. He then presented Ms. Houser with a plaque. Mayor White explained that Ms. Houser has been involved with the City' s establishment of foreign trade as one of its primary commercial interests, and that she has been involved with it since the very beginning. He noted that encouragement of foreign trade is becoming a big part of the local economy and that it is working very well. He then thanked Ms. Houser for her help. Regional Justice Center Update. Captain Tom Brown distributed copies of the executive summary for the month of October, which outlines the 120-day schedule for the construction project between 4th Avenue, James Street, Smith Street, and the 2 November 21, 1995 PUBLIC railroad tracks. He noted that the construction COMMUNICATIONS project is on time, the work is on time, that they have just approved the final construction sched- ule, and that the budget remains on track. He noted that there have been 67 potential change orders to the project, with 29 of them negotiated with the contractor and that the net result of these change items is still showing a credit for King County on the life of this project. He explained that the structural steel has been put in south of the project and that they are up to the fifth level of structural steel in the courthouse area. He also explained that all of the slab work that is being done in the detention area has been expanded all the way down 'Co the southern most portion of the project and that they are now on the second tier of the mezzanine level- of the detention area with three housing units poured in place. Mayor White thanked Captain Brown for the update and noted that King county is making good progress with this project. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR N be approved, with the exception of Item 3D, which was moved to Other Business as Item 4G. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR —ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 7, 1995, with the following correction to Item 3B: Check numbers 206785-207018 Should read 206785-207108 STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) S. 196th Street Corridor - UPRR Crossing - Grant AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for improvement to an existing UPRR spur crossing at S. 196th Street, to accept the grant for same and to establish a budget in the amount of $127, 350, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. The railroad company will be providing all necessary matching funds. 3 November 21, 1995 TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) CONTROL Metro Grant. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with Metro for ADA accessible improvements at bus stops, to accept the Metro pass through grant funds of $81, 000 and Metro' s local match .thereto of $26, 000 and establish a budget in the amount of $120 , 000 for project expenditures, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. The city' s match for this grant will be $13 , 000 for which funds exist in the Shuttle Bus project fund. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) James Street Traffic Safety Issue. AUTHORIZATION for the Public Works Department to investigate alternatives to enhance traffic safety along James Street from Central Avenue to 100th Avenue and to limit the investigation to only those alternatives that are financially possible (not to exceed $2 million dollars) , as recommended by the Public Works Committee, due to the existing heavy traffic on James Street which presents traffic concerns. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) Surplus Vehicles. AUTHORIZATION to declare cer- tain Equipment Rental vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize that they be sold at the State of Washington auct_1-1, ss recommended by the Public Works Committee. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Building Demolition - Accept as Complete. ACCEPT as complete the contract with Building Busters, inc. for the Building Demolition project and release of retainage after state releases, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract was $78 , 648 . 42 . The final construction was $78 , 648 . 42 . SOLID WASTE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Residential Solid Waste Self Haul Charges, Meridian Annexation Area. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3253 amending the City Code Section refer- encing Garbage Collection by a collection company to allow residential self-haul without the man- dated service charge in areas that annex to the City after the effective date of this ordinance, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 4 November 21 , i995 SOLID WASTE Said self-haul provision would expire upon either the City' s contracting hauler taking over service of the area or five years after annexation, which- ever occurs first. SEWERS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) Metro Sewer Rate Increase. The City was advised by Metro in June of this year that their service per residential unit will be increased frog:; $17 . 95 to $19 . 10 . This $1 . 15 increase will becone effec- tive January 1, 1996 . It has been recomme:i�zad by the Public Works Committee that this incre_a-.e be passed along to our customers, including the corresponding utility tax that the additi.c:nal $1. 15 increase would generate, and that a.: ordinance be adopted, passing on Metro' s r_re increase with the effective date of the .✓a.ng anuarl 1996 . MANN MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3250 passing on Metro' s rate increase, including the corresponding utility tax thereon, with the effective date of the rate being January 1, 1996. Woods seconded. Bennett said this is another tax increase and he is opposed to it. Mayor White stated that this is a rate increase for service provided to the citizens of Kent by Metro. Johnson noted �nat this is the result of a Federal mandate Fi.ld that it is for the good of the community. Upon Orr' s question, Wickstrom explained that the City Will be billed by Metro whether the increase is passed on or not. it was noted that if the increase is not taken from the sewer rates, it would be taken from other City funds . The motion to adopt Ordinance 3250 then carried with Sennett :,,-' used. IMPACT FEES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) School Impact Fees. The proposed ordinance relates to school impact fees; establishes framework for the adoption of a school impact fee program by the City; requires the execution of an interlocal agreement between the City and any school district located in the City and requests to participate in the school impact fee __ gram; provides for the adoption of the School r_ .�rict ' s Capital Facilities Plan; allows collection of school impact fees by the City on new development impacting schools; provides the formula -or fee 5 November 21, 1995 IMPACT FEES calculation and a fee schedule; describes the procedures for credit, appeals, and refunds; all as authorized by the Growth Management Act and Chapter 82 . 02 RCW; amends Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new Chapter 12 . 13 ; and sets an effective date. The City Attorney explained that the ordinance applies to residential development, that it pro- vides for certain exemptions for temporary and transitional housing, as well as certain housing for the elderly and rebuilding of destroyed housing due to catastrophes. He noted that it exempts apartments converted into condominiums and developments where school impacts have previously been mitigated. He noted that an interlocal agreement is required, and that the School District must submit to the City annually its Capital Facilities Plan which will then become, if adopted by the City Council, a part of the City' s Capital Facilities Plan. He said the District must also provide annually enrollment projections, standards for service, future capacity and an inventory of existing capacity, and it must account for funding received and how the fees are spent. Lubovich noted that the fee is based on new development based on the Capital Facilities Plan, and that a formula and schedule of fees are included. He pointsd cut that -_'-.Csa -aas a = "' necessarily the fees which will be in effect at the time the ordinance is adopted, and that the - fee would be adopted by a separate ordinance after submission of the Capital Facilities Plan. He said the ordinance proposed tonight simply establishes the framework for the fees and the annual fee analysis. He explained that all fees would have tC be paid before the issuance of a building permit. City Attorney Lubovich explained that the resolu- tion proposed deals with a low income housing analysis as it applies to the school impact fees. The City Council would have a six month period to review the issue. ORR noted that the Planning committee has dis- cussed this issue and recommended it unanimously, and that since that time she has received a great 6 November 21, 199 IMPACT FEES deal of information from individuals and MOVED that the Council accept input from those present tonight and that a Council workshop or public hearing be set up in the future. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Pete Gomes noted that people move to the City of Kent because of the school district, and that impact fees are devastating to affordable housing. He urged the Council to study this issue further. Scott Flovd said he would pay an impact fee to develop, and noted that the Kent School District is the fourth largest in the state. He explained that the District was receiving $3 . 2 million in mitigation fees from the County. He asked the Council to keep the quality of the District where it is by supporting mitigation fees. Ken Peckham, Schneider Homes, 6510 Southcenter Boulevard, encouraged the Council to hold workshops with developers in order to arrive at a solution to this situation. He said imposing fees may force developers to move out of the area, and that developers cannot provide affordable housing due to fees. Brien Stafford, Stafford Homes, said that mitigation fees affect people who do not have a voice since they have not yet moved here. He said mitigation fees for sewer, water, parks, transportation and schools make affordable housing impossible, which makes the city unavailable for young families. John Cochenour, Lexington Fine Homes, Vice President of Master Builders Association, spoke in opposition to the imple- mentation of impact fees, noting that it is unfair to impose a significant premium on people buy-ing a new home and not on people living in existing homes . He stated that when the price of new homes goes up, the price of all homes goes up. He ex- pressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak, and said that Florida has backed off from imu_ act fees because of the impact on their society. Jerry Fitz , Seattle King County Association of Realtors, agreed that impact fees curtail affordable housing and asked that a complete analysis be done. Jim Hager, Superintendent of the Kent School District, encouraged the Council to hold a work- shop, noting that there are many complicated issues involved. He stated that 84 students are November 21, 1995 IMPACT FEES generated by each 100 new single family homes. He pointed out that as a result of the Meridian Annexation, the District will lose approximately $3 . 2 million in mitigation fees which would go to enhancing capital facilities within the district. He explained that in addition, the city requires other costs which were exempted by the county. He noted that the district cannot fix fees. He ex- pressed the desire to work with the Council on this issue to determine how to pay for facilities as the population increases. Cass Brotherton, 26805 148th Avenue SE, stated that they bought homes in this area because they were in the Kent school district, and that education is a critical element of where people choose to live. Connie Baesman, 10206 S.E. 224th, commended the Kent School District, and said most developers want to help meet the needs and concerns of citizens. She voiced concern about the possible loss of miti- gation fees in regard to the annexation, and urged the Council to help the school district. Carol Cason, 23240 88th Avenue South, Apt RR201, stated that housing is too expensive and schools in other locations pay less per student and students receive a better education. She said the school district should be more accountable. Gary Young, Polygon Northwest Company, 4030 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 201, Kirkland, commended the Council for revisiting this issue tonight and urged them to hold a workshop. He said they sympathize with the school district, and that they ara LJ1111LtGd to building homes that are afford- ably priced. He said that a $1, 000 increase in the cost of a home .is significant and sends people to other communities. He said they are glad to participate in helping to arrive at a fair and equitable way to meet the needs of the school district and those who need affordable housing. Grace Yuan, legal counsel for the school district, stated that impact fee programs work well to help build facilities to serve new growth. She pointed out that the benefits of the program go to the taxpayers of the city, and that if development does not contribute a fair share, the taxpayers will have to pay for the schools. She asked that a public hearing be held so that a school impact fee can be implemented in the City. Bill Dinsdale, 13700 S. E. 266th, said consideration 8 November 21, 19 5 IMPACT FEES must be given to what kind of impact the miti- gation fees are making on the average home He said that with mitigation fees on water systems, parks, roads, and schools, as well as permit fees, $20, 000 can be added to the cast c" a house, making it out of reach to some. Councilmember Orr recommended that a works:^o•.: and/or public hearing be held, and expressed concern about the timing. She pointed out that in 1991 the Impact Fees Committee recommended impact fees be adopted. She noted that the _ ._... has been discussed by the Planning Committee repeatedly. She reiterated that as of Jarn: .ry 1996, the ability to collect fees in the an.,.�.xe tion may be lost. She expressed concern at2,.:.�_ influx of permit applications in an effort avoid the fee. Lubovich noted for Houser ti'_ 1Z k`:e ordinance would become effective 30 days aft3r final passage. Orr recommended holding a workscop before the Council meeting of December 12th. The City Attorney noted that if the intent is to ha re the ordinance in effect by the time the annexation takes place, it would have to be adopted this month. Clark asked about a moratorium on the issuance of permits pending adoption of an impa::' fee, and nctCd that if this took place on December 12 , the dates impacted would be beta - .1 January 2 and January 12 . Lubovich said th..� `_le issue of a moratorium could be considered an: could be passed immediately, as long as the-:n a hearing subsequent to that. -" ' WOODS MOVED to hold a public hearing on of school impact fees on December 12 . Orr seconded. Orr suggested holding a workshop to the hearing so that they have the necessa-L-v information to make a decision on December _ 2 . Mayor White suggested holding a workshop at 7 : 00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5th. All ar_,-reed . The City Attorney said he will determine whet`Zr the ordinance could be subject to a 5-day enact- ment period. Mayor White pointed out that public input is not taken at a workshop, but will be taken at the public hearing. Representatives from the School District and from the Master Builders offered to have staff available to provide information at the workshop. , There was no 9 November 21, 1995 IMPACT FEES objection from Council. The motion to hold the workshop on December 5th and the public hearing on December 12th then carried. WOODS MOVED to make the letters received on this issue a part of the record. Orr seconded and the motion carried. ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4G) AMENDMENTS (REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D) Accessory Housing Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-3 . Mayor White noted that adoption of the proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 15. 02 of the Zoning Code to include a definition of "Accessory Dwelling Units" , amend Chapter 15 . 04 to allow accessory dwelling units in single family dwellings, amend Chapter 15 . 05 to establish parking requirements for accessory dwelling units, and add a new section 15 . 08 . 350 to establish regulations for accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Orr outlined revisions to the pro- posed ordinance as follows: Page 35, add Item 3 , Accessory Dwelling Units Page 36, delete Item 9 , Accessory Dwelling Units Page 39, add the following to the last sentence of Item 4 : pursuant to Section 106 of the Uniform Building Code and as subsequently amended or recodified" Page 41, change effective date from five days to thirty days. Orr explained that adding Accessory Dwelling Units to page 35 allows Accessory Dwelling Units in the Professional and Office District, and removing it from page 36 removes it from the Conditional Use list. ORR THEN MOVED to adopt Ordinance 3251, as just amended, which amends Chapter 15 . 02 of the Zoning Code to include a definition of "Accessory Dwelling Units" , amends Chapter 15 . 04 to allow accessory dwelling units in single family dwell- ings, amends Chapter 15 . 05 to establish parking requirements for accessory dwelling units, and adds a new Section 15. 08 . 350 to establish regula- tions for accessory dwelling units. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. 10 November 21, 1995 ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) AMENDMENTS M1 C Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-10. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3254 amending the M1-C Zoning District. After review of a proposed zoning code amendment to the Ml-C zone at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 23 , 1995, the Commission approved an amendment to Section 15 . 04 . 170 to allow drive-in and drive- through eating establishments in the M1-C zone, and to reduce the minimum lot size for land in the Mi-C zone to 10, 000 sq. feet. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F) Single Family Residential Development Standards, Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-8_ On June 26, 1995 , the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Single Family Residen- tial Development Standards. This item was sent to the City Council on October 3 , 1995 . At that time, the Council requested that this item be sent to the City Council Planning Committee for dis- cussion. The Committee reviewed the item on October 17 , and November 7 , 1995 . The Zoning Code Amendment is proposed to implement the goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. Orr suggested that the following revised language be incorporated: "Proposed front yards less than twenty feet in depth are subject to approval by the Planning Director based on review and recommendation from the Public Works Department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right of way requirements as specified in the City of Kent Comprehensive Transportation Plan and City of Kent Construction Standards. " SHE THEN MOVED to approve the Zoning Code Amend- ment, as amended, on Single Family Residential Development Standards (ZCA-95-8) per the Planning Commission and City Council Planning Committee recommendations, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Woods seconded. It was clarified that the motion in- cludes the suggested revised wording. The motion then carried. 11 November 21, 1995 ZONING MAP (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) AMENDMENT Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment, Phase 1, East Hill CPA-95-1. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3255 amending the zoning map to implement the Land Use Plan Map of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. FINAL PLAT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2 . The Top of the Hill Final Plat is 8 . 74 acres in size and is located on the north side of S. E. 244th Street, approximately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue S.E. The Council approved the Top of the Hill pre- liminary plat on September 20, 1994 . Upon Orr' s question, it was clarified that al- though the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 20, 1994 mention nineteen conditions, there are eighteen. ORR MOVED to approve the staff' s recommendation of approval for the Top of the Hill Final Plat with eighteen (18) conditions, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. Houser seconded. Orr noted that a decision has not yet been made as to whether S.E. 244th Street would be open or closed, and asked whether acceptance of this final plat would jeopardize the Council' s ability to close that street if that is what they decide to do. Wickstrom noted that the Council can close any street at any time. Orr thanked the staff for working with the developer during the past weeks. The motion then carried. REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) West Hill Plaza Rezone RZ-95-2 . The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of an appli- cation by Harmit S. Lamba to rezone an area from the current zoning NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, to CC, Community Commercial. The property is located at 24606 - 24700 Military Road S. ORR MOVED to accept the Findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of the West Hill Plaza Rezone No. RZ-95-2 , and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Houser seconded and the motion carried. 12 November 21: , 19S5 ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) ZONING & COMP Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan PLAN AMENDMENTS Amendments CPA-95-1 and Initial Zoning AZ-95-3 . On September 25 and 26, 1995, the Planning Commission held public hearings on both the comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments for the Meridian annexation area. Following their deliberations pn October 2 , 1995, the Commission forwarded their recommendation to the City Council. Tonight' s Slcc%-ng is the second cf - c public hearings pursuant to state law. The Council' s first hearing was held October 1-, 1995 . The Council is asked to adopt two ordinance , one for the Comprehensive Plan amendment ,#CPA-9: -1 and one for the initial zoning for the Meric,__an Annexation area ,#AZ-95-3 . City Attorney Lubovich noted that the enact:r, �nt date in the ordinances needs to be changed _.o .Hake it effective January 1, 1996, which is the c2f ec- -. tive date of the annexation. He also noted "'.aat a zoning map which was distributed to the Cou:jcil tonight was not included in the zoning ordinance in the Council packet and needs to be added. Council President Woods noted that several - tzers were received concerning the comprehensive :' an amendments and initial zoning. SHE THEN = to make these letters a part of the public rec_- 'd. Orr seconded and the motion carried. Mayor White opened the public hearing. �r Leever, 27320 - 154th Avenue S . E. , noted _s neighborhood is a stable area with the zonir_a of one unit per acre since 1972 or earlier, ar_, a� sees no reason why it should be changed. H--- nozed that the King County Tax office informed hi- t--,at if his property were designated from 1-3 un_t_ ;per acre, the taxes would go up. He strongly s ; gested that this item not be approved at th_. _ time. Mr. Robert Casey, Attorney for Theodora Kendal who owns property at 27614 - 156th Avenue S . noted that Ms . Kendall' s property is an 18 a .re parcel abutting Highway 18 and 156th Street , He explained that the request to Council is fcc Ms. Kendall ' s property to be zoned R1-7 . 2 h --cause 13 November 21, 1995 ANNEXATION a large portion of the property (approximately ZONING & COMP 13 1/2 acres) is currently being condemned by the PLAN AMENDMENTS State of Washington for wetland mitigation pur- poses and for stormwater treatment, and if the higher density is not allowed for this property, it will cause some real problems for Ms. Kendall. He also explained that until two weeks ago it was their understanding that the property, upon the rezone, would be zoned 4-12 units per acre as the Comprehensive Plan indicated. He said he had asked the Planning Department to give him notice of any zoning changes for the area but that his name was not included on the mailing matrix con- cerning this change and apologized to the Council for the late request. Kim Kircher, 27614 - 132nd Avenue SE, said that they didn't know about the rezoning for this area until last week. She expressed concern that their property may have two different zonings which will need to be addressed before adoption of the zoning. She showed on a map where her property is located and noted that the property is the first piece of undeveloped property south of the intersection of Kent-Kanglev and 132nd Ave. Ms. Kircher pointed out that their property is next to the Lake Meridian Marketplace Shopping Center, the Springwood County Housing Apartments, and the Country Glen Apartments to the north. She explained that the properties to the south and east are proposed zoning R1-7 . 2 and that their property is at the edge of a highly developed area. She noted for the Council that their tax lot consists of Lot 17 and part of Lot 20 which has two different zonings applied to it. She explained that Lot 17 is proposed to be zoned R1-9. 6, and Lot 20 is proposed to be zoned R1-7 . 2 which could cause some confusion later. Ms. Kirscher noted that the Planning Committee needs to look and see that the zoning boundary is adjusted to meet Kent City standards which means that Lot 20 would have to be split into two different zonings for tax ID numbers . She suggested that a better option would be to change the proposed zoning of Lot 17 to R1-7 . 2 because this would get around the confusion of the past lot adjustment. She requested that consideration be given to changing all the zoning in their area proposed for R1-9 . 6 to match the surrounding Rl- 7 . 2 zoning; and to look at Lot 17 and part of 14 November 21, 1995 ANNEXATION Lot 20 to make sure that the proposed zoning for ZONING & COMP the tax lot has consistency. Philip Fortunato, PLAN AMENDMENTS 27842 - 132nd Avenue S.E. , noted that the higher density zoning currently stops at S . E. 278th, on the east side of 132nd Avenue, and that he is requesting the Council to consider lowering that to the south by two blocks which would put it on his south property line at the S.E. 280th private road. He also requested that the Council consider giving him 7200 sq. ft. lots. He explained that his property is the last piece of undeveloped pro- perty in that area with houses all around, and that he has two tax lots, which is a house on 3/4 acres and the adjoining 6 . 1 acre lot which together make a rectangular shape. He further explained that the easternmost boundary of that rectangle is undevelopable because of a wetland area, so he will probably lose approximately 1-1/2 acres of the 7 acres. He said this would be con- sistent with a proposed cluster zoning or lot averaging that the Council is considering. He noted that his property is the last one on 132nd to have an approved City of Kent sewer plan and that the people to the south couldn't develop until the sewer is more enhanced. He again requested that the Council consider moving the zoning to the south by two blocks to S. E. 280th private road and encompass his tax lot. Elmira Forner, 14420 S. E. 288th, noted that her property has recently been annexed into the City of Kent and that she supports the annexation efforts because Kent has a reputation of being a well-governed city. She also noted that many hours had been spent over the last year coordinat- ing with King County to establish zoning densities for this area and that King County' s recommenda- tion is that this area be zoned R6-P which is the equivalent of the R1-7 . 2 on the City of Kent' s maps. She explained that this zoning meets all of the criteria in the Growth Management Act, and the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehen- sive Plan to encourage higher density, affordable single-family housing within the urban growth areas and within the City limits. She also noted that the R6-P zoning is consistent with the State Growth Management Mandate that growth shall occur where public facilities are available or are a 15 November 21, 1995 ANNEXATION high priority for future planning. Ms . Forner ZONING & COMP explained that they have recently been annexed PLAN AMENDMENTS into the King County Water District #111 service area and that there are sewers available within 1/4 of a mile. She noted that a letter was sent last week to Councilmember Leona Orr, Chairperson of the Planning Committee, requesting that Kent retain the zoning that was proposed by King County and that copies of the letter were sent to the other two members of the committee also. She noted that the purpose of the Comprehensive Growth Management Act was to stop sprawl into the rural areas and create higher densities in the cities and urban growth areas reducing the escalating costs of providing services and preserving the rural environment. She again requested that the City Council keep this area in the zoning density of R6-P or R1-7 . 2 of the Kent Zoning as recom- mended by the King County Council . Edward Pawlowski, 27727 - 106th S.E. , requested that his area not be disturbed. Marie Lewis, 25840-135th Lane S.E. , noted that she would like to have a higher density in her area. Linda Bushaw, 24436 - 116th Avenue S.E. , noted that she is a co-owner together with Lawrence Noland of Property which is located directly across from the Fire Training Center and that they are requesting that the property be zoned commercial. Dean Wilson, 27234 - 154th Avenue S.E. , noted that he appreciates the fact that this area is now being annexed into the City of Kent. He explained that his property is located one block to the south of Kent-Kangley Road on 154th which is a very jagged zone of commercial and single-family residences that have created problems in the past. He re- quested that the Council either block zone the area or declare it a single-family residence and remove the people who are causing problems, making a mess, and creating a morally disgusting envi- ronment for the rest of the neighbors. Bill Dinsdale, 13700 S.E. 266th, noted that the pro- perty he owns on the corner of 120th & 240th is adjacent to the commercial zoning that was pre- viously mentioned. He noted that it is currently zoned 7200 sq. ft. lots within King County, and he requested that it be considered for the 5000 sq. ft. lot zoning. He explained that it would make a 16 November 21, 1995 ANNEXATION logical transition because 240th will some day be ZONING & COMP widened to five lanes, noting that he has already PLAN AMENDMENTS been talked to about acquiring some of his pro- perty for that widening. He noted that there are sewers and water already up to the edge of his property so -it seems logical to go from commercial and multi-family to 5, 000 sq ft lots. He ex- plained that there are some restrictions on the property because it won't serve the lower part of the property so that part would not be developable with the current sewer availability and could cause the probable clustering up at the top of the property. Sam Voss, 14610 SE 266th Street, ex- plained that he is an old friend of Mr. Pawlowski and some of the responses to Mr. Pawlowski ' s com- ments in the Planning Committee meetings bothered him. He noted that Mr. Pawlowski 's lot has been zoned one house per five acres by King County but when it was annexed into the City it was zoned two houses per acre because the previous year an adjacent property was so zoned. He also explained that when you have such a large increase in land in terms of percentage, no consideration is given to the possibility of needing new zoning cate- gories, especially when large rural areas are brought in to the City. He emphasized that he is more concerned about the attitude rather than the actual response to this case. Brenda Houston, granddaughter to Frances Houston who lives at 15304 SE 273rd Place, spoke on behalf of her grandmother explaining that they have letters from seven neighbors who live in the immediate area and a petition signed by more than 50 people in the whole surrounding area. She noted that she is requesting, on behalf of her grandmother as well as the other neighbors, that this area be kept single-family zoning because there are many retired folks and children in the area and i*C is a nice community. She noted that if the area were zoned commercial, children would have to change schools. She requested the Council not to zone this area commercial . Gary Widener, 27220 - 154th Avenue SE, noted that he had been to the Council several times asking about rezoning. He explained that at the first Planning Committee meeting and Council meeting he was requesting that Option One be squared off which is Lot #6, the Walton lot, and the Wilson lot, and that these three parcels 17 November 21, 1995 ANNEXATION be rezoned to accommodate some type of development ZONING & COMP that is going to work out for the community in- PLAN AMENDMENTS cluding Lake Wilderness and abroad. Mr. Widener noted that he has come up with an Option Two for consideration because at the last Council meeting the first lot was rezoned commercial . He further noted that that property has a narrow depth to it and that the owner will not be able to get any- thing realistic on it. He explained that option Two will incorporate Lot #6 so that there will be some type of availability for a small commercial property. Nila Farrell, 15415 SE 275th Street, requested that Council, when considering the zoning for this area, take a drive out to her neighborhood to see how lovely it is, and to leave it zoned single- family. She noted that progress is happening and must come but that she would like to see it done in a more orderly way. Roxanne Olin, 15304 SE 273rd Place, noted that she has lived in this neighborhood for 34 years and that it is a good area to raise children. She requested that it be kept single-family residential and not zoned com- mercial. Dean Conti, 12633 SE 270th, reiterated his plan for this property to be zoned Office Professional so that they can put a small pro- fessional office building in the area and then do a deed or purchase for a park in the wetlands area which will give a buffer for the wetland streams as required. He noted that the Planning Commis- sion has accepted his proposal and that this proposal will minimize the density of any con- struction that will occur on this property as opposed to housing. Janice Haeseler noted that she lives in the same neighborhood as Frances Houston and has lived there for 38 years. She expressed that they do not want commercial business on Kent-Kangley because it might cause more traffic and problems for their area. Gar Stewart, 26620 - 127th Avenue SE, requested the Council make an open space where the County has built a wetlands retention pond because it would provide a good buffer between commercial and housing. Ken Sturgis, 15224 SE 275th, noted that much work has been done previously with the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan which was zoned R6-P and that they would like to keep it that way. He said 18 November 21 , ANNEXATION that it took many years to get this type of zc ing ZONING & COMP and that commercial zoning would not be to r PLAN AMENDMENTS benefit. Upon Mayor White' s question, Mr. st_:ris clarified that he had received a letter toda-- = -om King County that encouraged the residences orte and listen to a zoning process in the same being discussed tonight. Gary Widener, nc- iat the two pictures he submitted earlier with letters show what type of commercial is al _� iy there. He noted that he' s been receiving t=ors from the Water Department saying that the system is inadequate and that a new one wi ._ `.ave to be installed in that area because of grcw-::1 . He explained that big mains would be put it commercial, which would benefit the exist-.,.:, neighborhood. There were no further comments and ORR MO—EL -o close the public hearing. Houser seconded .7irj. the motion carried. Orr then requested that an,;-7e who submitted materials to the Council and _ to the City Clerk do so now. ORR MOVED that all correspondence received tonight be made a part of the public record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to bring this item back to the Ci Council for action on December 12 , 1995 , as Other Business item, and that no public te- z- :=y be taken at that time since the public hearin- has been closed. She requested staff analysis :he requests that have been received and any that those requests might have in the over_._:. on- text of the entire Meridian Annexation, so -_- Council will have some way to judge what s•_: ,.. �,f these individual requests means, and perhapZ ::_-ing back recommendations for Council to deliber'-`- on on December 12th. Woods seconded and the _on to bring this item back on December 12 with :,:aff recommendations based on tonight' s input th--n carried. PLANNING (OTHER BUSINESS - 4H) COMMISSION (ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR) Planning Commission. Councilmember Orr ro d that at the Planning Committee meeting of this dLte, it was recommended that an ordinance be brc�- ht before the full Council tonight. SHE MOVED ::-- adopt Ordinance No. 3252 repealing Chapter 2 . 56 of 19 November 21, 1995 PLANNING the Kent City Code relating to the Planning COMMISSION Commission and further amending Chapter 2 . 30 of the Kent City Code establishing a Land Use and Planning Board as part of the Planning Agency of the City of Kent. Mann seconded. Orr explained that four Planning Commissioners had resigned over the weekend, effective immediately. She said the Planning Commission has been an area of concern for some time, that issues have come _ out with no recommendation, and that there have been complaints from citizens. She opined that this may be a good time to investigate the possi- bility of making some changes. She explained that current duties of the Commission would be turned over to the Planning Committee for the short term. She expressed concern about a balanced representa- tion from all areas of the city, a code of conduct for commissioners, an appropriate term, reversal of Council decisions, and whether or not the Council should confirm members and if so, the ability to remove members from the appointment. Bennett said it is the Mayor' s role to shape the City, and spoke against changing the rules at this time. He suggested continuing with the five remaining members or making appointments to fill the vacancies. Houser agreed that this is a good time to consider revamping the Commission, which has been under consideration for many months. The Mayor noted that it has not been discussed with his office. Johnson said that under the previous administration, he had attempted to set down rules and procedures, and agreed that this is a good time to relook at the issue. Bennett pointed out that the Board of Adjustment was abolished earlier this year, and that it was one of the few avenues for citizens who felt they were treated unfairly. Orr explained t at this is not intended to do away with a citizen input group. She said that nine members may be exces- sive and encouraged any person currently on the Planning Commission and anyone who would like to be on the Commission to turn their name in to the Mayor' s Office. Bennett suggested continuing with the current five members and discussing the matter at the Council retreat in March. 20 November 21, 1995 PLANNING Orr read into the record a letter from Robert C. COMMISSION MacIssac regarding the dissolving of the Planning Commission. She clarified an error in the letter, noting that the Planning Committee was referred the adult housing issue from the Council meeting of April 18r 1995, but that the Planning Committee did not see it until May, and that that issue will be brought to the Council on December 12th. Council agreed to take public input on this issue. Kenneth Dozier, 15458 S. E. 272nd Street, Planning Commission member, read a letter commending Russ Stringham for his efforts on the Planning Commis- sion. WOODS MOVED to make the letter a part of the record. Orr seconded and the motion carried. Dave Mortenson, 21737 96th Place South, spoke in opposition to eliminating the Planning Commission, noting that there should not be even a short time when citizens do not have a place to take their concerns. He noted that it takes a long time to understand the complexities of planning Issues, and that chances can be made later. He said eliminating the Commission gives the impression that there are other motives, because logic is lacking. Dick Garrett, 1720 Maple Lane #21, recommended that if changes are to be made for the benefit of citizens, that a bi-partisan committee be formed. Wade Davis, 26414 Eton Court, agreed that there is no logic in disbanding the Commission. He said that it is interesting that this step is being taken after an election where the Council President was opposed by one of the prominent members still on the Planning Commission, and asked if this could be a form of Political retribution against a Commission member. Davis also stated that the motion to dissolve the Commission may be because there is too much debate or disagreement between the members, and stated that debate is good. He noted that it is diffi- cult to make an informed decision without hearing the best of both sides. Wayne Thurinaer, 858 1st Avenue North, said it is deplorable that four members of the Commission have been made to feel they have no more input. He said there is merit to disbanding the Commission and restructuring it with some direction. He said that everyone has the riaht to dissent, but that it also entails some responsibility to work in a spirit of 21 November 21, 1995 PLANNING cooperation. Janette Nuss, 26220 42nd South, said COMMISSION that the decision of those who resigned from the Commission has nothing to do with any Council race that took place, or any Council members, but with two years of problems that have taken place. She stated that -the resignations were their choice, and that they did not receive pressure from anyone to resign. She said the decision was made in the best interest of the community at large. Russ Stringham, 524 W. Meeker, said that an article in the newspaper called the Commission a dysfunc- tional panel. He said the Commission debates the issues in detail in full view of the public, and they frequently disagree, which is their function. He explained that they do not make decisions beforehand, and that they address issues that are new to them. He pointed out that they do not have the benefit of a committee system to work out details. Stringham spoke about a zoning recom- mendation involving multi units at 248th and 104th, noting that no member of the public at the - hearing that night objected. He said the zoning recommendation passed the Planning Commission 9-01 but that the newspaper article indicated other- wise. Stringham pointed out that the terms of two of the members who resigned expire at the end of this year and they had already said they do not anticipate reappointment. He also noted that the adult entertainment issue was rejected 7-2 by the Commission, and that they did not ask that it go to Council, but were directed by staff to send a prepared letter to Council asking them to take over the issue. He noted that cluster housing zoning is a very complicated issue which has a dramatic impact on long term development patterns in the city. He said that after extensive debate, the reason the Commission could not arrive at a recommendation was that the Chair abstained from voting. Bill Dinsdale, 13700 S .E. 266th, said that the way to address the problems with the Planning Commission is to make modifications or change the rules, not just the name. He said it appears that there is some ulterior motive, such as getting rid of someone on the Commission, and that that should be done through the proper process . 22 November 21, 1995 PLANNING Orr stated that this is not in any way a form of COMMISSION retribution against any Commission member, and that it came about because there have been pro- blems and discussions about reorganizing. She reiterated that any Commission member who wants to reapply is encouraged to do so. Mayor White recognized that this is a policy issue, which is the responsibility of Council, and said he will respect Council' s wishes and try to find a way to receive public input. The motion to adopt Ordinance 3252 then carried with Bennett opposed. STREAM BUFFER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) REQUIREMENTS (ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR) Stream Buffer Requirements. AUTHORIZATION to set December 12 , 1995, as the date for a public hearing on the stream buffer requirements in the Meridian Annexation Area. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) RECREATION Asbestos Removal Project. ACCEPTANCE of asbestos removal from Parks houses located at 8121 South 259th and 24615 26th Place South as complete and release retainage to P.L. Whitton Company Northwest, Inc. upon receipt of state releases. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Russell Road Park Asphalt Repair Project. ACCEPT- ANCE of the Russell Road Park-Asphalt Sidewalk Repair Project as complete and release retainage to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. upon receipt of state releases. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) Transfer of Parks and Open Space in Meridian Annexation Area. King County will transfer si:: parks and eight smaller pieces of open space to the City of Kent as part of the Meridian Annexa- tion. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the "Letter of Transfer, " a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to agreed upon improvements to be made by King County and any other documents to effectuate the transactions contemplated in these agreements. HOUSER MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign the "Letters of Transfers, " Memorandum of Understanding, and related documents including Resolution No. 1448 regarding the transfer of parks and open space 23 November 21, 1995 PARKS & from King County to the City of Kent in the RECREATION Meridian Annexation area. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31, 1995. The Operations Committee for November 8, 1995, was cancelled. Council authorized payment by signing check summary. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/95 161206-161705 $1, 907 , 565 .75 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 31 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/3/95 Checks 207109-207445 $ 259 , 615 . 08 Advices 28715-29122 $$ 504 302 . 12 $ 763 , 917 . 20 REPORTS Council President. Woods reminded Councilmembers that the Suburban Cities meeting will be held in Bellevue on the second Wednesday in December, and that individuals who are retiring will be honored. operations Committee. Johnson noted that the Committee will meet at 9 : 30 a.m. on November 22nd. Planning Committee. Orr announced that the next meeting will be held on December 12th. EXECUTIVE At 9 :45 p.m. the meeting recessed into an execu- SESSION tive session of approximately 15 minutes to discuss property acquisition and pending litigation. The meeting reconvened at 10: 17 p.m. PROPERTY HOUSER MOVED to approve the acquisition of the ACQUISITION land known as the Roylance property for $152 , 450 including appraisal and closing, on or at a (Parks and negotiated price based on appraisal if it is less, utilizing budgeted King County Conservation Recreation) 24 November 21, 1995 PROPERTY Futures grant, Mill Creek Flood Control funds, ACQUISITION and approximately $9, 360 in Parks grant matching funds. Woods seconded and the motion carried. HOUSER MOVED to approve the purchase of the Meldrum property for $194, 500, including closing, (Parks and with approximately $50, 000 coming from Parks grant Recreation) matching fund and the balance of $144 , 500 from the City's capital reserves through an amendment to the 1995 budget. Woods seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. ZP% oacob Brenda CMC City Cl 25 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL PLAZA REZONE RZ-95-3 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. .31�q rezoning approximately 2.58 acres from Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15. 09. 050 (C) . This item was approved at the Council meeting of November 21, 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE, of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, relating to land use and zoning, rezoning approximately 2 . 58 acres from Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) . WHEREAS, an application to rezone approximately 2 . 58 acres from the current zoning of Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) was filed on June 22 , 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposed rezone on July 19, 1995 with no conditions required; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the West Hill Plaza rezone was held before the Hearing Examiner on October 18 , 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings that the West Hill Plaza rezone is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone and subsequent development activity would be compatible with development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be 1 circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone, and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent ; and WHEREAS, the Findings are consistent with the standards for a rezone set forth in section 15 . 09 . 050 (C) of the Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, the Kent Hearing Examiner recommended approval on October 18 , 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council moved to accept the Findings of the Hearing Examiner and adopt the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation for approval of the West Hill Plaza rezone from Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) - to Community Commercial (CC) zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The subject property located at approximately 24606-24700 Military Road South consisting of approximately 2 . 58 acres and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is rezoned from Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) . SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . 2 SECTION 3. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AT TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 3 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 4 City of Kent - Planning Department t Q f 0 - a IC� [ r �I a ° Q �8 ° (oQ ❑ S 248 S7 n o. cz aI. OD Q I G(✓fC j�iLJ 0 �; 'C L�CI[ (�� � I MI5 -APPLICATION NAME: West Hill Plaza ...NUMBER: #RZ-95-2 DATE: October 4, 1995 REQUEST: Rezone � LEGEND N =s . Application site Zoning / Topography Zoning boundary ��r )Cent city Limits �0/1 Kent City Council Meeting Date_ December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GLEN KARA PRELIMINARY PLAT SU-95-3 -BATL;?-- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set January 2, 1996, as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiners recommendation of approval with conditions for a preliminary plat application (SU-95-3) by Lakeridge Development, Inc. The property is located west of 100th Avenue S. and north of S. 222nd Street. 3 . EXHIBITS• None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO�_ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D Kent City Council Meeting Date December 19 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL ABSENCE d atr'-�C-Z- C WA 2. SU143 ARY STATEMENT: fr Council the Presidenember t Woods City Couqu 6tie6 an meeting, as she will be unable to attend. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Councilmember Houser 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Councilmember Mann (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E MEMORANDUM TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHRISTI HOUSER, COUNCILMEMBER DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1995 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE I would like to request an excused absence from the December 12, 1995 City Council meeting . I will be out of town and unable to attend. Thank you for your consideration. CH.jb P1 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT DEFIBRILLATORS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase order for the purchase of replacement defibrillators. The purchase of defibrillators was authorized in the 1996 Capital Budget. These life savings pieces of equipment are essential. They are being replaced after having outlasted the manufacturers projected life span by seven years. The unavailability of replacement parts and service agreements necessitates the earliest possible replacement of these machines. Over the last several months we have researched the King County Emergency Medical Division's criteria and the availability of manual defibrillators. It is clear that there is only one vendor and one machine that meets all the required criteria (see attached justification) . Under City policy this qualifies as a sole vendor purchase. The City' s cost is estimated at less than $51, 000 . This is a significant savings over the budgeted cost if we act in a timely fashion to order the units. Approval of this consent item would authorize the Mayor to sign the purchase order upon delivery and acceptance of the machines. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo sent to Mayor White and memo from Battalion Chief Weatherill 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Administration City Administration and Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $51, 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1996 approved CIP budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3F MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 21, 1995 TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF G l t SUBJECT: SOLE VENDOR - DEFIBRILLATORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approved in the 1996 budget is a replacement of defibrillators. These life saving machines are critical to our operations. The current defibrillators are several years past their expected life span. We have followed the guidelines of the King County Emergency Medical Services Division and compared several machines to determine which meet operational needs and King County Emergency Medical Services mandatory criteria. Due to the professional efforts of our staff, we have been able to clearly demonstrate there is only one vendor that can meet all of the criteria (please refer to attached justification). Based on that, the written quotes are well within budget. The total will be under $51,000. In accordance with City Policy I am requesting the we be able to issue a purchase order based upon the sole source guidelines. Further, I will be asking Council on this date for authorization for you to sign the purchase order. I anticipate that Council authorization will appear on the next Council agenda. Permission to proceed under so endor purchase policy granted. J' hite, Mayor lm MEMORANDUM NOVEMBER 6, 1995 TO: CHIEF NORM ANGELO FROM: BATTALION CHIEF KEN WEATHERILL SUBJECT: SINGLE VENDOR PURCHASE FOR CARDIAC DEFIBRILLATORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the fall of 1994, our department was informed by Physio Control that product support for their Life Pack 5 defibrillators will be discontinued as of January 1, 1996. This decision is understandable since the technology used in the Life Pack 5 units is outdated and all of our units have exceeded their expected life span, some nearly three times. It became apparent that our department was going to have to prepare for a purchase of all new defibrillators. A research committee was formed consisting of lead defibrillation instructors, EMS purchasing personnel and myself. We reviewed every available cardiac monitor/defibrillator manufacturer. There were 11 total.. From these 11, we narrowed the field down to three. The units that did not make the first cut were disqualified due to: 1. Not approved for field use; 2. No scene voice recorder; 3. Not a manual defibrillator by design. The next phase the committee began was a review of the final three units. This phase included use of the defibrillators by our instructors using King County EMS protocols, review of service availability, ease of operations and training, product support, functional aspects of the units and did the units have King County EMS' approval for use. Through this research, it is apparent that only one defibrillator will meet our needs. It is the "First Medic #710" manufactured by Phyysio Control. It is the only unit to have all of the following features and verified support: 1. On scene voice recorder via cassette tape. Voice recording is a requirement of King County EMS. Cassette tape is the only method that King County EMS presently accepts. 2. Lead selection via built in switch. The ability to select between Lead 1, 2, and 3 is a requirement of King County EMS Astole protocols. Memo to Chief Angelo November 6, 1995 Page 2 3. In field repair and loaner issue by manufacturer within 24 hours. We have this service presently and it has proven invaluable. Defibrillators are a life saving device, we must have no more than 24 hours down time when a unit is out of service. It should also be noted that Physio Control is a local company with an excellent reputation in the fire service. The Kent Fire Department has used their products since the late 1970's. They have a proven track record for product design, endurance and support. Based upon the research described in this memo, I am requesting single vendor authorization for the purchase of cardiac defibrillators "First Medic #710" from Physio Control. tcn �0/1 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AUTOMATIC AND �IMU'IT,UUAL AID AGREEMENTS alu� + Fv-v- 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: be Vdhh0r1Z48d al��_ ti,ave ninmPndod *ham` the Mayor to sign current and eny future Mutual or Automatic Aid Agreements as outlined in the attached Executive Summary, including the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) agreement, as a matter of ongoing business; ftithat the Fire Chief ..alse- be authorized to sign these agreements a3-oven to make and sign routine changes to levels and areas of response in the appendices of the respective agreements. ing abl-e to provide basic emergency services historically participated in automatic and mutual aid agreements within King County. Periodically these agreements need to be modified for routine business (e.g. annexations, stations relocated, etc) . Additionally there is a need to sign mutual agreements with Pierce, Mason and Kitsap County fire agencies as a required part of the State Mobilization Act. There are also special programs such as membership on the Urban Search and Rescue Team that requires the signing of participation agreements. 3 . EXHIBITS: Executive Summary and sample Regional Mutual Aid Agreements 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Admin. and Public Safety Committee (3-01_ (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X There is a potential for additional costs related to occasional response to other jurisdictions. Typically these costs are covered within budget, reimbursed by the State or balanced out through the exchange of aid over the years. We do not pay for mutual aid received under these agreements. 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 12, 1995 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE COUNCILMEMBERS: JUDY WOODS, PAUL MANN, TIM CLARK, JIM BENNETT, JON JOHNSON, CHRISTI HOUSER AND LEONA ORR FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: REGIONAL RESPONSE PLAN, AUTOMATIC AND MUTUAL AID_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BACKGROUND: No matter what level of emergency response resources are available, it is absolutely critical that strong Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreements be maintained as part of the total protection of our citizens and community. Also there are State Mobilization laws and national opportunities in place for us to enhance our levels of protection and disaster preparation at minimal cost. Local automatic aid and county wide mutual aid have been in existence since the earliest history of the department. However, conditions, needs and available resources routinely change over time. Therefore, it is necessary to periodically modify the level or response areas related to these agreements. As a result, it is important that the Chief of the Fire Department maintain the authorization to make ongoing routine adjustments to the agreements. We are requesting that the Mayor be authorized to sign all Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements that are recommended by the Fire Chief and that are approved as to form by the City Attorney. Further, that the Fire Chief be authorized to sign modifications to the level of response and response areas as the needs of the community service warrant. The concept of annual and mutual aid is based on the premises that over a period of years, the exchange of support and benefit received will be equitable between the communities. We have consistently found this to be the case or we have adjusted relationships to bring them into balance. Since demand for service and availability of resources is continually changing, the Fire Chief needs authority to modify the specific levels of response without having to re-authorize the basic agreement each time. Regional Response Plan: As a part of the state law that created the State Mobilization Plan, it is required that we participate in mutual aid with the other counties assigned to our region. Just as in the State Mobilization Plan, we are not committed to send apparatus and staff every time. That is based on each department's evaluation of what they can reasonably do at the time of the specific request for mutual aid. The difference is that costs are not reimbursed by the State for units within your region until 12 hours have elapsed or the State has declared a State Mobilization and issued the_appropriate authorization. This plan is reasonable and of benefit to the City of Kent especially in light of our area's potential for large emergency situations. December 12, 1995 Concent Calendar Page 2 King�CouM/Pierce County Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Team: This is a team of urban rescue specialists. There are several teams nationally - usually formed through cooperative agreements between'regional agencies. They can be pulled to anywhere within the United States or its territories. They may be enlisted by the Federal Government to respond internationally. Personnel assigned to these teams must meet stringent training and skills maintenance requirements. Costs to the Department are minimal such as time off for once a month training or time off for initial classes. All other costs related to actual emergency responses are reimbursed to the City. The best examples of their value is the Oklahoma City bombing, California earthquakes, etc. What is the advantage to Kent? Currently, we do not have anyone on the team but a couple of people are interested enough to commit their off duty time to get involved. This holds down our cost. However, most important is the strong potential for our community to call in such a team or in a lesser emergency to have personnel with the knowledge and skill to help ourselves with Urban Search and Rescue. By participation we will gain invaluable information, skills and the ability to more effectively interface with other USAR teams if we are unfortunate enough to have a disaster situation that would require a national response. Summary: There is a need to enhance and maintain Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements at the local, regional and national levels. As our community experiences daily changes in the needs for specific resources, it is important that the process to adjust the specific responses be appropriate and timely to ensure the continuity for safety of the public. Our current agreements need to be updated and formalized. The new State Mobilization Act requires agreements to be in place for us to receive the reciprocal agreements from other counties within the state. Finally, we have the opportunity to participate in the National Mutual Aid for Urban Search and Rescue at minimal cost but high benefit to our area which has a significant potential to benefit our community by the knowledge and relationship that can be gained. Request/RecQrn iendativn: - Fire Chief requests Council's authorization for the Mayor to sign current and any future Mutual Aid or Automatic Aid Agreements related to: neighboring fire, EMS, disaster preparedness, Fire Prevention, Fire Investigations, Public Education, operations; county wide fire, EMS, disaster preparedness operations; regional mutual aid agreements and the State Mobilization Plan; ongoing authorization to place personnel on the Regional USAR Team, (this will involve a limited number of people). December 12, 1995 Consent Calendar Page 3 Further, this authorization would allow the Fire Chief to make and sign routine changes to levels and areas of response in the appendices of the respective agreements. Also any further mutual or automatic agreements would be based upon the recommendation of the Fire Chief and subject to review of the City Attorney as to form prior to the Mayor's signature. It would be presumed that the Public Safety Committee or full Council would be made aware of any major new agreements and/or periodically be given an update as to the status of Mutual/Automatic Aid Agreements as requested. Financial Impact: Varies with actual need for automatic and mutual requests. Cost is neutral to minimal over the years due to reimbursements and/or reciprocal aid received. Cost of not having such agreements is major at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Alternatives: 1. Discontinue automatic/mutual aid agreements and accept significantly higher cost of operation and risk. 2. Limit level of mutual aid agreements and assume costs related to not being able to get reciprocal help for major emergencies. 3. Bring every agreement back to Council for full action on minor and routine changes. tcn AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF AGENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MUTUAL AID FIRE RESOURCES PLAN THE PARTIES to this agreement are City of Kent Fire Department and King County(County) acting by and through the King County Department of Emergency Management. WHEREAS, RCW 38.52.090(1) authorizes the development of mutual aid arrangements between local emergency management organizations and other public and provide for emergency management aid and assistance in the case of disasters too great to be dealt with unassisted; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and its Fire Department finds it desirable and in its - best interest to use the services of the King County Department of Emergency Management to act as a centralized coordinator to facilitate mutual aid arrangements between other King County Fire Districts and Fire Districts and Departments in Pierce County, so as to attempt to decrease the number of documents necessary to accomplish such arrangements; NOW, THEREFORE; IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Kent appoints and County agrees to act as the Fire Department's agent for the sole purpose of entering into centralized joint mutual aid agreements between the City of Kent Fire Department and other King County fire districts and departments, and districts/departments in Pierce County, as to implement a Mutual Aid Fire Resource Plan to be developed by the respective fire agencies. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this agreement are ratified and confirmed. 2. County is specifically authorized to execute the attached FIRE RESOURCES MUTUAL AID MASTER AGREEMENT attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on behalf of the Kent Fire Department and the City of Kent agrees to hold King County harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to the City of Kent or it's representatives. and King County agrees to hold the City of Kent harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to King County or its representatives. 3. This agreement and appointment of agent may be terminated and revoked by either party at the expiration of thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice to the other party. 1 4. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing executed by authorized representatives of the parties. 5. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior or written understandings or agreements of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. CITY OF KENT By: Mayor Jim White CITY OF KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT KING COUNTY By: By: Fire Chief Norm Angelo Title: As authorized by the Kent City Council Date Signed: Date Signed: Address for Notice: Address for Notice: Kent Fire Department King County DEM 24611 116th Avenue SE 16623 SE 176th Place Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98055 Attested By: - Brenda Jacober, City Clerk Approved as to form: Approved as to form: By: By. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney King County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Recommended by: Director King County Department of Emergency Management 2 AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF AGENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MUTUAL AID FIRE RESOURCES PLAN THE PARTIES to this agreement are City of Kent Fire Department and King County(County) acting by and through the King County Department of Emergency Management. WHEREAS, RCW 38.52.090(1) authorizes the development of mutuai aid arrangements between local emergency management organizations and other public and provide for emergency management aid and assistance in the case of disasters too great to be dealt with unassisted; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and its Fire Department finds it desirable and in its best interest to use the services of the King County Department of Emergency Management to act as a centralized coordinator to facilitate mutual aid arrangements between other King County Fire Districts and Fire Districts and Departments in Kitsap County, so as to attempt to decrease the number of documents necessary to accomplish such arrangements; NOW, THEREFORE; IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Kent appoints and County agrees to act as the Fire Department's agent for the sole purpose of entering into centralized joint mutual aid agreements between the City of Kent Fire Department and other King County fire districts and departments, and districts/departments in Kitsap County, as to implement a Mutual Aid Fire Resource Plan to be developed by the respective fire agencies. .Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this agreement are ratified and confirmed. 2. County is specifically authorized to execute the attached FIRE RESOURCES MUTUAL AID MASTER AGREEMENT attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on behalf of the Kent Fire Department and the City of Kent agrees to hold King County harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to the City of Kent or it's representatives, and King County agrees to hold the City of Kent harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to King County or its representatives. 3. This agreement and appointment of agent may be terminated and revoked by either party at the expiration of thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice to the other party. 1 4. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing executed by authorized representatives of the parties. 5. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior or written understandings or agreements of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. CITY OF KENT By: Mayor Jim White CITY OF KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT KING COUNTY By: BY: Fire Chief Norm Angelo Title: As authorized by the Kent City Council Date Signed: Date Signed: Address for Notice: Address for Notice: Kent Fire Department King County DEM 24611 116th Avenue SE 16623 SE 176th Place Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98055 Attested By: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk Approved as to form: Approved as to form: By: By: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney King County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Recommended by: - Director King County Department of Emergency Management 2 AGREEMENT FOR APPOINTMENT OF AGENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MUTUAL AID FIRE RESOURCES PLAN THE PARTIES to this agreement are City of Kent Fire Department and King County(County) acting by and through the King County Department of Emergency Management. WHEREAS, RCW 38.52.090(1) authorizes the development of mutual aid arrangements between local emergency management organizations and other public and provide for emergency management aid and assistance in the case of disasters too great to be dealt with unassisted; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent and its Fire Department finds it desirable and in its best interest to use the services of the King County Department of Emergency Management to act as a centralized coordinator to facilitate mutual aid arrangements between other King County Fire Districts and Fire Districts and Departments in Mason County, so as to attempt to decrease the number of documents necessary to accomplish such arrangements; NOW, THEREFORE; IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Kent appoints and County agrees to act as the Fire Department's agent for the sole purpose of entering into centralized joint mutual aid agreements between the City of Kent Fire Department and other King County fire districts and departments, and districts/departments in Mason County, as to implement a Mutual Aid Fire Resource Plan to be developed by the respective fire agencies. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this agreement are ratified and confirmed. 2. County is specifically authorized to execute the attached FIRE RESOURCES MUTUAL AID MASTER AGREEMENT attached hereto as Exhibit "A" on behalf of the Kent Fire Department and the City of Kent agrees to hold King County harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to the City of Kent or it's representatives, and King County agrees to hold the City of Kent harmless from any expense resulting from actions which are attributable to King County or its representatives. 3. This agreement and appointment of agent may be terminated and revoked by either party at the expiration of thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice to the other party. 1 4. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing executed by authorized representatives of the parties. 5. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior or written understandings or agreements of the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. CITY OF KENT By: Mayor Jim White CITY OF KENT FIRE DEPARTMENT KING COUNTY By: By. Fire Chief Norm Angelo Title: As authorized by the Kent City Council Date Signed: Date Signed: Address for Notice: Address for Notice: Kent Fire Department King County DEM 24611 116th Avenue SE 16623 SE 176th Place Kent, WA 98031 Renton, WA 98055 Attested By: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk Approved as to form: Approved as to form: By: By: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney King County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Recommended by: Director King County Department of Emergency Management 2 FIRE RESOURCES MUTUAL AID MASTER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is executed by Pierce County through its Department of Emergency Management acting as agent for each of the Pierce County Fire Districts and Fire Departments listed on Exhibit "P" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and by the King County Department of Emergency Management, acting as agent for each of the-King County Fire Districts and Fire Departments listed on Exhibit "K" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The fire districts/departments listed on Exhibits "P" and "K" are the parties to this agreement; the respective Departments of Emergency Management are the agents of the parties. WHEREAS, each of the fire districts/departments have specifically authorized a respective Department of Emergency Management to act on its behalf for the purpose of entering into this agreement as authorized by RCW 38.52.090(1), and; WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this agreement to facilitate mutual aid agreements between each of the fire districts/departments with each of the other fire districts/departments, including those districts within the same County, and to accomplish these arrangements with a minimum number of agreements through the use of one centralized master agreement; NOW THEREFORE; EACH OF THE FIRE DISTRICTS/DEPARTMENTS LISTED ON EXHIBITS "P" AND "K" AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1 . DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPERATION PLAN Each party to this agreement shall assist in the development of a plan providing guidance for the mobilization and utilization of fire service resources to cope with agreed to types of emergency/disaster situations; listing the personnel, resources and services that can be made available by the parties to this agreement; and indicating the method and manner by which such personnel, resources and services may be utilized by the other party(s). Such plan shall also document the amount and manner of payment and/or compensation for the utilization of such personnel, resources and services, if appropriate. 2. FURNISH PERSONNEL RESOURCES OR SERVICES Each party to this agreement agrees to furnish those personnel, resources and services to each other party hereto as outlined in the Mutual Aid Fire Resources Plan. 1 3. NO REQUIREMENT TO RENDER AID It is hereby understood that unless the adopted Mutual Aid Fire Resources Plan dictates otherwise, all personnel, resources and services provided under the terms of this agreement are furnished and/or supplied voluntarily and at the discretion of the furnishing agency. The furnishing agency shall have the primary interest of protecting its own constituency. Refusal or failure of a party to this agreement to provide aid requested by another party shall not result in any liability for the party which did not provide such aid. The party requesting aid shall hold harmless the party which refused or failed to provide such aid from any liability incurred thereby. 4. AGREEMENT NOT EXCLUSIVE It is hereby understood that the agreements entered into hereunder and the corresponding Mutual Aid Fire Resources Plan adopted shall not supplant preexisting mutual aid agreements nor deny the right of any party hereto to negotiate supplemental mutual aid agreements. 5. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Mutual aid extended pursuant to this agreement shall be furnished in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 38.52 RCW, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 118.04, and other applicable law. g QATr : EFFECTIVE This agreement shall be effective as to each party when each party has duly approved the same and has filed notice with the state of Washington Department of Community Development, Division of Emergency Management. Said agreement shall be operative and binding until terminated by said participants. 7. ADDITIONAL PARTIES It is anticipated that from time to time additional fire districts within King or Pierce County may wish to join in this agreement. In the event any fire district or department within either of the Counties not a party to this agreement wishes to join as a party to this agreement and that fire district has appointed its County's Department of Emergency (DEM) Management as its agent and authorized its DEM to enter into this agreement, then that DEM shall send a proposed amendment to the other DEM for review and approval, if appropriate. 2 If approved, the respective DEM's shall execute a written amendment adding the additional fire district and shall notify each of the fire district or fire department parties to this agreement of the amendment. 8. TERMINATION A. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until terminated as follows: any party to this agreement may withdraw from the same at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the appropriate Department of Emergency Management, the state of Washington Department of Community Development, Division of Emergency Management B. Said notice shall automatically terminate the agreement on the date set out unless rescinded prior thereto in writing. PIERCE COUNTY Doug Southerland Date Pierce County Executive William Lokey, Director Date Pierce County Department of Emergency Management APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date KING COUNTY Gary Locke Date King County Executive James E. Montgomery Date Sheriff-Director, King County Department of Public Safety APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the Prosecuting Attorney Date 3 �m Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-8 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3Z/oS amending the Zoning Code for the implementation of the goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. This item was approved by the City Council on November 21, 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Cit Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H jl I �I I. i �I ORDINANCE NO. �I AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of II the City of Kent, Washington, relating to single family residential design standards amending Chapter 15 . 04 of the Zoning Code to establish standards for minimum lot widths, minimum street setbacks, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious surface coverage, driveway dimensions, and minimum lot j size . WHEREAS, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies which support a variety of housing types and densities throughout the City, including more single-family than multifamily residential I developments, more flexibility and innovation in terms of building and site design and residential setbacks; and I' WHEREAS, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies which recommend expansion of home ownership opportunities for all income groups; and j I WHEREAS, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan it - contains goals and policies which recommend a revised jj calculation system for determining maximum allowable single family density; and �i WHEREAS, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies which recommend protection of the quality and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies; and It it � �II� WHEREAS, revised Kent Zoning Code provisions for single family residential densities and development I standards, consistent with the above goals and policies, i I, have been prepared and reviewed, together with public comments obtained at two public hearings conducted by the II Kent Planning Commission, and recommended for adoption by the Planning commission and the City Council Planning Committee; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36 . 70A. 120 , the Growth Management Act requires that jurisdictions enact development I') regulations which are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 005 is hereby amended as follows : it is Sec. 15 - 04 . 005 . Agricultural district, A-1 . The stated goal of the city is to preserve prime " agricultural land in the Green River Valley as a '! nonrenewable resource . The agriculture zone shall actively encourage the concentration of agricultural uses in areas where incompatibility with urban uses will be minimal to aid in the implementation of those goals . Further, such i� classification of prime agricultural land thus recognizes !' and encourages farming activity as ,a viable sector of the local economy. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows : t I I . - ------------ ! i Ij 1 . Agricultural uses, including any customary II agricultural building or structure, such as j planting, cultivation and harvesting of j• li crops, animal husbandry, nurseries and I� greenhouses and other agricultural �I occupations . 1� 2 . one (1) single-family dwelling per lot . i {i 3 . Group homes class I-A. B . Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15 . 08 . 020 : 1 . Churches . I 2 . Nursery schools and day care centers . I jC. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as I; !� follows : { s� 1 . Guest cottages not rented or otherwise conducted as a business . 2 . Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 3 . Roadside stands not ,exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for the sale of agricultural products on the premises . It E 3 i ----------- r i i ! 4 . Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 040 . S . Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use . i� (� 6 . For permitted uses, hazardous substance land !! uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of !I chapter 11 . 02 and do not accumulate more than !� twenty thousand (20 , 000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 050 , except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities , which are not permitted in this district . D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows : 1 . General conditional uses as listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 . I; 2 . For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land- uses which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11 . 02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20, 000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes, or any combination _. thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 050 , except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district . 4 !II 1_ --- - — �i ,I E . Development standards. I 1 . Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is one (1) aeae thirty four thousand seven hundred square feet (34 , 700) . li I� SECTION 2. Subsection (E) (2) of Section 15 . 04 . 005 i I is hereby amended as follows : - 2 . Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is ene ' andi-ed '4 ^^' Sixty (60) feet a . To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots a circle of applicable diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot provided that an access easement to another lot i is not included within the circle 3 . Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage fl is thirty (30) percent . SECTION 3 . Subsection (E) (4) of Section 15 . 04 005 is hereby amended as follows : �i 4 . Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet . () Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building set back line . _ i 5 i I' `I I` it b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is fifteen (15) feet . i I' C . Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet . I� I� f; d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is twenty (20) feet . �I I'! 5 . Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half (2 1/2) stories , not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line . !, 6 . Additional standards . a . Structures for feeding, housing and care _ of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line . b . See chapter 15 . 08 , pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for j' requirements concerning accessory - buildings and additional standards . I: c . The following uses are prohibited: (1) The removal of topsoil for any purpose . 6 ---- --- - -- li i it I I' 1 (2) Grade and fill operations, provided that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct buildings or structures as outlined II in subsections 15 . 04 . 005 A. , B . , C. j I and D. i i (3 ) All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities , pipelines or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses . (4) Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials . (5) Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices . SECTION 4. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 005 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (7) as follows : I� 7 . Maximum impervious surface coverage. Maximum imperious surface coverage is 40% of the total parcel area . a . Except for lots used for agricultural Practices , the maximum impervious surface 7 I I� area allowed shall be ten thousand (10 , 000) sCfare 'feet when the lot is greater than one 1 acre . SECTION 5. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 005 is �i hereby amended by adding a new subsection (8) as follows : II i . Zero lot line and clustering. Minimum lot width building setbacks and minimum lot size re ualtions may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development . F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15 . 06 shall apply- G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15 . 05 shall apply. ! SECTION 6. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 010 is hereby amended as follows : Sec. 15 . 04 . 010 . Residential agricultural district, RA. The city has, through its RA and MA zones , the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth. It is essential that the city avoid excessive zoning far in advance of i demand. Rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for additional residential, commercial ,or industrial land in the city. This documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis showing that the other lands already zoned and accessible to municipal services are not sufficient or suitable to accommodate demand for the proposed uses and that the market demand for the proposed development is II 8 i I .. i I� I� sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to provide ji municipal services, including but not limited to police, I fire, streets, water, drainage and sewer, required by the iI j project . A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows : 1 . Agricultural uses, including any customary agricultural building or structure, such as planting, cultivation and harvesting of �I crops, animal husbandry, nurseries and greenhouses and other agricultural occupations . 2 . One (1) single-family dwelling per lot . 3 . Group homes class I-A. �i i I B . Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the i� development standards listed in section 15 . 08 . 020 : it Ij 1 . Churches . i� II 2 . Nursery schools and day care centers . i it C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as I follows : !I 'I 1 . Guest cottages not rented or otherwise conducted as a business . I I I �I 9 IiI IIi I III i 2 . Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for i transient labor. 'I �I 3 . Roadside stand not exceeding four hundred Il (400) square feet in floor area, and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises . i ' 4 . Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 040 . 5 . Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones . i D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows : general conditional uses as listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 . E . Development standards. 1 . Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ene--(I) aere thirty four thousand seven hundred (34 , 700) i scruare feet . i SECTION 7. Subsection (E) (2) of Section 15 . 04 . 010 is hereby amended as follows : 2 . Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is ere h a _e (I sixty (60) feet . I 10 i I it a . To determine minimum lot width for IIirregular lots a circle of applicable I i diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot provided that an access easement to another lot j is not included within the circle . 3 . Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30) percent . SECTION B. Subsection (E) (4) of Section 15 . 04 . 010 is hereby amended as follows : 4 . Minimum yard requirements. a . Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet . i j (1) . Porches and private and shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback H line . ,I iI b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is fifteen - (15) feet.. {I C . Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet . i d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking i street of a corner lot is twenty (20) feet . if 4 I i ij 5 . Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not �I exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . I! i 6 . Additional standards. l a. Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line . b. See chapter 15 . 08 , pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards . j SECTION 9. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 010 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (7) as follows : i 7 . Maximum impervious surface coverage. Maximum impervious surface coverage is 40% of the total parcel area . is II a. Except for lots used for agricultural it practices the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10 , 000) square feet when the lot is greater than one acre . SECTION 10. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 010 ! is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (8) as follows : i 8 . Zero lot line and clustering. Minimum lot width building setbacks and minimum lot size regualtions may be modified consistent 12 i I { with provisions for zero lot line and j clustering housing development . i F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15 . 06 shall apply• G. Offstreet parking. The cffstreet parking requirements of chapter 15 . 05 shall apply. i H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is +I classified as view property. SECTION 11. Subsection (A) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended as follows : Sec. 15 . 04 . 020 . Single-family residential districts. It is the purpose of the single-family residential districts to stabilize and preserve low density, single- family residential neighborhoods . It is further the purpose to provide a range of minimum lot sizes in order to promote 11 diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments . i A. Districts established by lot area. The following single-family residential districts are established: 1 . R1-20 : :fwenty she.. n (29 , 999) Sixteen thousand (16 , 000) square feet minimum lot I area . I i 13 j it I+ i I 2 . R1-12 : Te!3=; ' Ninety six hundred (9 , 600) square feet minimum lot area . 3 . R1-9 . 6 : ,,;ine t a h;an r a (9 , 6 I! Seventy six hundred (7 , 600) square feet minimum lot area . I� I I 4 . R1-7 . 2 : Seven thedsand twe ti ,a ,a z n Fifty seven hundred (5 , 700) sauare feet i minimum lot area. I+ i 5 . R1-5 . 0 : F t- d (S GGG) Four thousand (4 , 000) square feet minimum lot area . 'I B . Minimum zoning area. Minimum zoning area for the R1-5 . 0 district is fifteen thousand (15 , 000) square feet (three (3) lots) . C. Maximum zoning area. Maximum zoning area for the i R1-5 . 0 district is eight (8) acres . D. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows : I i 1 . One (1) single-family dwelling per lot . 2 . Crop and tree farming. it 3 . Group homes class I-A. - '.i E . Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided they conform to the development li standards listed in section 15 . 08 . 020 : 1 . Churches . 14 i I; 2 . Nursery schools and day care centers . i I� F. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as 'i follows : it it 1 . Accessory uses and buildings customarily I appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports and minor structures for storage of personal property. 2 . Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons . 3 . Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 040 . G. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows : General conditional uses as listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 . SECTION 12. Subsection (H) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended as follows : H. Development standards. 1 . Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is as follows : - a. R1-20 : Sixteen I thousand (16 , 000) square feet . b. R1-12 : Twelve thetisand "-97 Ninety six hundred (9 , 600) square feet . 15 c . Rl-9 . 6 . riine theiigandsj3Er a a } Seventy six hundred (7 , 600) �I square feet . I. �I �I ( , O) Fifty seven hundred (5 , 700) I� square feet . II e . R1-5 . 0 : t ,a (S 9 9 9 Four thousand (4 , 000) square feet . !! SECTION 13 . Subsection (H) (2) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended as follows : 2 . Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is as follows : a. R1-20 : "even"" Fifty (50) feet . ij i b. R1-12 : Seven�-:-y (79' Fifty (50) feet . i C . R1-9 . 6 : Sevent- 'rti Fifty (50) feet . l d. R1-7 . 2 : Seven 3- Fifty (50) feet . 'J i e . R1-5 . 0 : Fiftom Forty (40) feet . I� f . To determine minimum lot width for irrecrular lots a circle of applicable i diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot , provided that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle . 16 SECTION 14. Subsection (H) (3) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended as follows : 3 . Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is as follows : a . R1-20 : Thirty (30) percent . b. R1-12 : Thiir 1. (�;^` Forty five (45) percent . C . R1-9 . 6 : Tzhir-ty (�3 Forty five (45) percent . d. R1-7 . 2 : =ii 3 Fifty (50) percent . e . R1-5 . 0 : Few-( 49)- Fiftv five (55) percent . SECTION 15. Subsection (H) (4) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 if hereby amended as follows : 4 . Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty {2} ten •(10) feet . 1 . At least 20 linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any garage carport or other primary parking area and the street property line with the exception of an alley property line . 17 'i 2 . Porches and private and shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line . 3 . Proposed front vards less than twenty feet in depth are subject to approval by the Planning Director,_ based on review and recommendation from the Public Works Department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-of-way reauirements as specified in the City of Kent Comprehensive Transportation Plan and City of Kent Construction Standards . b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is five (5) feet . C . Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is eight (8) feet . d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet . 5 . Height limitation. Height limitations are as follows : a. R1-20 : Two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . I 18 i 1 ' l � b. R1-12 : Two and one-half (2 1/2) stories , not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . C . R1-9 . 6 : Two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . d. R1-7 . 2 : Two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . e . R1-5 . 0 : Two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty (30) feet . 6 . Interior yards. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage . 7 . Additional standards. See chapter 15 . 08 , pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards ; provided that solar access setback requirements of sections 15 . 08 . 230 through 15 . 08 . 234 shall not apply to the R1-5 . 0 zone . SECTION 16. Subsection (H) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (8) as follows : 8 . Maximum impervious surface coverage. Maximum impervious surface coverages are as follows : a. R1-20 - Fortv (40) percent . b . R1-12 • Fifty (50) percent . 19 i c . R1-9 . 6 ; Sixty (60) percent . d. R1-7 . 2 ; Seventy (70) percent . e . R1-5 . 0 • Seventy five (75) percent . f . Except for lots used for agricultural practices , the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10 , 000) square feet . SECTION 17. Subsection (H) of Section 15 . 04 . 020 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (9) as follows : 9 . Zero lot line and clustering-. Minimum lot width building setbacks , and minimum lot size regualtions may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development . I . Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15 . 06 shall apply- J. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking regulations of chapter 15 . 05 shall apply. K. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. SECTION 18. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 030 is hereby amended as follows : Sec. 15 . 04 . 030 . Duplex multifamily residential district, MR- D. I� 20 i _ It is the purpose of the MR-D district to provide for a i limited increase in population density and allow for a greater variety of housing types by allowing duplex dwelling units . i A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows : 1 . One (1) single-family dwelling per lot . 2 . One (1) duplex per lot . 3 . Group homes class I-A and I-B . 4 . Crop and tree farming. B . Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15 . 08 . 020 : 1 . Churches . 2 . Nursery schools and day care centers . C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows : 1 . Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports and minor structures for storage of personal property. 2 . Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons . 21 I I I. 3 . Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 040 . D . Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows : 1 . General conditional uses listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 . _. 2 . Group homes class I-C, II-A, II-B and II-C . E . Development standards. 1 . Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is as follows : a . Single-family dwellings : t„e a a ^^ Fifty seven hundred (5 , 700) square feet . b. Duplex (two-family dwelling unit) : Eight thousand five hundred (8 , 500) square feet . SECTION 19. Subsection (E) (2) of Section 15 . 04 . 030 is hereby amended as follows : 2 . Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is as follows : a . Single-family dwelling: Seventt--44� Fifty (50) feet. 1 . To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots a circle of applicable diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be 22 _. i scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot rovided that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle . b. Duplex: Eighty (80) feet . SECTION 20. Subsection (E) (3) of Section 1S - 04 . 030 is hereby amended as follows : 3 . Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is as follows : a . Single-family dwelling: T4., , Fifty (50) percent . b. Duplex: Forty (40) percent . SECTION 21. Subsection (E) (4) (a) of Section -. 15 . 04 . 030 is hereby amended as follows : 4 . Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is t- _ (29) ten •(10) feet . 1 . At least 20 feet of driveway shall be provided between any crarage carport or other primary parking area and the street prooerty line - . with the exception of an alle property line 23 - ------- -- 2 . Porches and private and shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line . 3 . Proposed front yards less than twenty feet in depth are subject to approval by the Planning Director, based on review and recommendation from the Public Works Department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-of-way requirements as specified in the City of Kent Comprehensive Transportation Plan and City of Kent Construction Standards . b . Side yard. Minimum side yard is five (5) feet . C . Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is eight (8) feet . d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet . 5 . Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half (2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet . 6 . Interior yards. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage . 24 ! I i S 7. Additional standards. See chapter 15 . 08, pertaining to g and supplementary pplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards . SECTION 22. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 030 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (8) as follows : 8• Maximum impervious surface. Maximum impervious surface is seventy 70Percent of the total lot area . a• Except for lots used for acTricultural Practices , the ma ximum i<<w�rvious surface area allowed shall be ten thou (10 , 000) scruara feet When the lot is "reater than one acre . b• Porches and private and shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line SECTION 23. Subsection (E) of Section 15 . 04 . 030 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection (9) as follows : 9 . Zero Iot line and clusLerincy. Minimum lot width building setbacks and minimum lot size re ualtions maybe modified consistent with 3provisjons for zero lot line and clustering housing develo ment . F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15 . 06 shall _ apply. 25 I G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15 . 05 shall apply. H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. SECTION 24. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent - jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 25. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 26 i I_. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 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 27 f Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT: This Agreement is a continuation of studies that the City has been conducting on Mill Creek in conjunction with the City of Auburn and King County+l to help resolve the flooding problems south of the Green River. All three agencies are sharing in the costs and this has already been budgeted. The _ blie Were ^__..._.._}t__ _T'_=_ '_^____-men _? that reek litterl-oca-17- Cr 3 . EXHIBITS: Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement and Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (telephone approval from Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I AMENDMENT TO THE MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AUBURN AND RENT EXTENDING THE DURATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION This amendment extends the duration of the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement, originally adopted on June 30, 1992 by King County and the Cities of Auburn and Kent (hereinafter referred to as the PARTIES), by one year. The work program and budget associated with the additional work are set forth in Attachment A hereto. All changes to the existing agreement are contained in this amendment; elements of the original agreement which are not addressed in this amendment remain as stated in the original document. WI�EREAS, on June 30, 1992 the PARTIES adopted the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement and identified development of a Mill Creek Flood Control Plan as a primary objective of that agreement; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agreed to a one-year duration for the 1992 Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement to cover the first phase of work in the overall Mill Creek work program; and WHEREAS, that one-year Mill Creek work program resulted in completion in 1993 of Phase I of the Flood Control Plan, which is a hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analysis and an outlet benefits study; and WHEREAS, the PARTIES agreed in 1993 to an 18-month extension of the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement through December 31, 1994 in order to start Phase II of the Flood Control Plan, which is a Feasibility Analysis of flood control alternatives; and WHEREAS, Phase II is currently in progress and is anticipated to be completed in the first quarter of 1996; and u11EREAS, Phase III of the NO Creek Flood Control Plan is proposed to use the results of Phase II, the Feasibility Analysis, in order to conduct project design, environmental review, and to start the permit process for a Mill Creek flood control project; and WHEREAS, Phase III will begin immediately upon completion of Phase II in 1996; and WHEREAS, any work subsequent to 1995 toward completion of a Mill Creek Flood Control Plan and eventual implementation of a flood control project in this basin cannot be initiated without an extension of the interlocal agreement or negotiation of a new interlocal agreement to outline a scope of work and cost-share arrangements; and -1- WHEREAS, the PARTIES have agreed that it is now pertinent to examine the work program for the Mill Creek Flood Control Plan and to initiate the next phase of work toward development of that plan; and WHEREAS, major work products, including a Draft Mill Creek Flood Control Plan, and other interim work products will be brought to the Green River Basin Technical Committee for its review during the term of this interlocal agreement extension: NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES mutually agree to the following amendments to the interlocal agreement: Work Program Budget and Schedule The PARTIES approve the work program, budget, and schedule attached as Attachment A hereto and agree to secure adequate funding for all necessary Phase III NO Creek work as part of their jurisdiction's annual budget process. Amendment or Termination This agreement may be amended, altered, clarified or extended only by the expressed agreement of all parties to the agreement pursuant to notification of each parties' legislative or executive branch as required by each signatory to this agreement. Amendments to this agreement will address work programs, schedules, and budgeting and will be attached to and incorporated herein as necessary. The next amendment to the Interlocal Agreement is anticipated to be negotiated in late 1996 for continuation of work into 1997 and beyond. All amendments will be reviewed by the Green River Basin Technical Committee prior to the expiration of the existing agreement. This agreement may be terminated by any of the PARTIES upon ninety days written notice. In the event of termination, the PARTIES are each responsible for their one-third share of all costs incurred up to the effective date of termination. Duration The duration of this agreement shall be one year from the amended date of adoption, to expire no later than December 31, 1996. This duration is effective provided that the annual work programs and budgets are approved in accordance with Sections 2 and 6 of the original agreement. Effectiveness This agreement shall become effective upon signature by all PARTIES to the agreement. -2- Approved As To Form: King County Prosecuting Atomey King County Executive Date: Attest By: City Attorney City of Auburn Mayor, City of Auburn Date: Attest By: City Attorney,-City Kent Mayor, City of Kent Date: Attest By: SL:rsj5 10-95 "ATTACHMENT A" MILL CREEK BASIN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT EXTENSION (IAN 1 1996-DEC 31,1996) BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM, for: PHASE II COMPLETION AND INITIATION OF PHASE III of the MILL CREEK BASIN FLOOD CONTROL PLAN: BUDGET ITEM Staff Salaries and Benefits 56,835 Supervisory and Support Services 36,925 Consulting Services (a) 237,947 Supplies/miscellaneous 5,560 1996 TOTAL: $ 337,267 Citv contributions in 1996 (b): $ 107,422 apiece King County's contribution: $ 122,423 NOTES: (a) Estimated 1996 consulting costs are detailed below and include $15,000 in additional funds to replace expenditures in 1995 by King County as part of a downstream analysis of the Auburn Racetrack. King County will provide this added revenue. In addition, consulting funds have been increased in 1996 due to cost savings in staff salaries and benefits, and supervisory and support services. (b) Mill Creek costs will be shared equally by King County and the Cities of Auburn and Kent ($107,422 apiece),with King County funding the additional funds mentioned above, for a total King County contribution of$122,423. WORK PROGRAM ESTIMATED TASK DESCRIPTION WORK PRODUCTS COST CONSULTING SERVICES: Complete Phase II: -Draft Flood Control Plan No new costs - Feasibility Analysis - Selected Preferred Flood Control Project Initiate Phase III: -Design Flood Control Project -Project Plans and Specifications 140,947 -Environmental Review -Prepared Environmental Document(s) 70,000 -Assist in Permit Applications -Permits in process 10,000 - -Finalize Draft Flood Control Plan -Final Mill Creek Flood Control PIan 17,000 TOTAL 1996 CONSULTING COSTS: $ 237,947 KING COUNTY STAFF: Salaries and Benefits -Manage Contracts for Phase II and III - Participate in Mill Creek SAMP -Respond to requests TOTAL 1996 STAFF COSTS: S 56,835 SL:Ibj9 10-95 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Mayor White Don Wickstrom Brent McFall May Miller Roger Lubovich ABSENT: Jim Bennett MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Wickstrom explained that this is a carry-on of studies we have been conducting on Mill Creek in conjunction with Auburn and Icing County; all sharing the costs to help resolve the flooding problems south of the Green River. He noted that this is already budgeted Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement. Discussion: Tom Brubaker suggested that the indented paragraph of the Agreement on Page 1 be removed and inserted as another paragraph on Page 2 because that is the statement of intent and purpose for the entire Agreement. Committee concurred. WASTE REDUCTION &.RECYCLING GRANT - COMPOST BIN DISTRIBUTION _. PROGRAM Wickstrom said that this is a grant we received for special events in the recycling area. This project costs about $41,400 and the grant will pay 60% or $24,840. We will be matching with our Countywide Waste Reduction &-Recycling Grant. Essentially, it is 100% funded. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that advertising for this program is being made thru the Mayor's T.V. forum with the Conservation Specialist as well as flyers in the utility billings. Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement with the WQA State Dept of Ecology, for staff to accept the grant and, establish a budget for the 1 Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which-is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about S 1.4 Million Dollars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have - concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrency as required by GMA which means we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the City, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of service. McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are available. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 'a 1. SUBJECT: WASTE REDUCTION & RECYCLING GRANT �G/.L�T]— mTTT/'•E TTTTI nr GET CHANG_.E-_ 2. SU10MY STATEMENT: W&� received a grant from the Dept. of Ecology to provide an alternative for Kent residents to recycle and reuse compostable yard debris. This grant is for a Compost Bin Distribution Program which will help the City reach its 50% recycling goal by 1995 by diverting up to 20% of the household waste stream to a composting program. The total budget for this project is $41, 400 for which the State Grant will pay 60% of the funds or $24,840. The City will pay 40% of the total or $16,560 and will use tmatch. Ki County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant to provide theuthoriz� theMayor to sign the Grant Agreement, to accept the grant,and to establish a budget for the Bin Distribution Program. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (telephone approval from Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 27, 1995 - PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Mayor White Don Wickstrom Brent McFall May Miller Roger Lubovich ABSENT: Jim Beruiett MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Wickstrom explained that this is a carry-on of studies we have been conducting on Mill Creek in conjunction with Auburn and Icing County; all sharing the costs to help resolve the flooding problems south of the Green River. He noted that this is already budgeted Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement. Discussion: Tom Brubaker suggested that the indented paragraph of the Agreement on Page 1 be removed and inserted as another paragraph on Page 2 because that is the statement of intent and purpose for the entire Agreement. Committee concurred. WASTE REDUCTION &-RECYCLING GRANT - COMPOST BIN DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM Wickstrom said that this is a grant we received for special events in the recycling area. This project costs about $41,400 and the grant will pay 60% or $24,840. We will be matching with our Countywide Waste Reduction SL Recycling Grant. Essentially, it is 100% funded. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that advertising for this program is being made thru the Mayor's T.V. forum with the Conservation Specialist as well as flyers in the utility billings. Comnttee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement with the WQA State Dept of Ecology, for staff to accept the grant and, establish a budget for the 1 Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which-is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve - the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about $1.4 Million Dollars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrency as required by GMA which means we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the City, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of ` service. McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are available. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. 2 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrono RE: Waste Reduction &-Recycling Grant Compost Bih Distribution Program The goal of this program is to provide an alternative for I-Cent residents to recycle and reuse compostable yard debris in their yards and gardens. This program helps the City reach its 50% recycling goal by 1995 by diverting up to 20% of their household waste stream by diverting yard waste. To meet this goal the City will distribute compost bins to City residents. The total budget for this project is $41,400. The Grant from the State of Washington will pay 60% of the funds for this program, or $24,840. The City will pay 40% of the total or $16,560. The City intends to use a Icing County Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant to provide the match. Bins will be sold to each resident for a subsidized prize of $10. The subsidy will be subtracted from the bin cost billed to the State Grant. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement with the WA State Dept of Ecology and, for staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the Compost Bin Distribution Program. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DUTIES OF POLICE CHIEF 2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3a relating to the duties of the Chief of Police. National accreditation requires that the Police Chief be responsible for the Police Department' s budget and this ordinance identifies that responsibility. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Staff and Public Safety Committee 11/21/95 (3-0 L (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, adding a new section to Chapter 2 . 22 of the Kent City Code relating to the duties of the chief of police . WHEREAS, the Kent Police Department is currently going through a national accreditation process; and WHEREAS, as part of that process it was noted that the duties of the chief of police should be spelled out specifically with regards to responsibility of the chief over the police department ' s budget ; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2 . 22 of the Kent City Code relating to the police department does not set forth the duties of the chief of police; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add a section to Chapter 2 . 22 relating to the duties of the chief of police in order to assist in the accreditation process ; NOW, THEREFORE, cleie�r�'�u�ce THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . There is hereby added a new section, Section 2 . 22 . 025 , to the Kent City Code as follows : Sec. 2 .22 . 025 . Chief of police - duties . The chief of police shall be the chief police officer of the city responsible for maintaining the peace of the city. The chief of police shall have the responsibility for the appointment , removal and suspension of employees of the department subject to the city' s Civil Service rules and regulations , the city' s personnel policies , and labor agreements . The chief shall be responsible for the management of the police department and the administration of the department ' s budget as authorized and directed by the city council and the mayor. The chief of police shall also perform such other duties as may be imposed by ordinance or as directed by the mayor . SECTION 2. Sever ability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or - phrase of this ordinance . 2 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 3 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 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VIOLATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3270 amending Sections 9.02 .302, 9 . 02 .304 and 9 . 02 .310 of the Kent City Code to provide that violations of Protection Orders and No Contact Orders are to be punished as gross misdemeanors. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, amending Sections 9 . 02 . 302 , 9 . 02 . 304 and 9 . 02 . 310 of the Kent City Code relating to the violation of a protection order and the violation of a no contact order and the penalties therefor. WHEREAS, the Kent City Code currently defines the crime of violation of a protection order and violation of a no contact order as misdemeanors ; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature has recently re-defined the crimes of violation of a protection order and - violation of a no contact order as gross misdemeanors which have different penalties than misdemeanors ; and WHEREAS , the City Council desires to amend its code to make penalties for violation of protection orders and no contact orders consistent with State law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : �+/Cr(gCtdlL(✓!4C11 SECTION I . Section 9 . 02 . 302 of the Kent City Code is , hereby amended to read as follows : Section 9 . 02 . 302 . Same--Violation of a no contact order. When any person arrested for or charged with a crime involving domestic violence is released from custody before arraignment or trial on bail or personal recognizance or after trial before sentencing or as a condition of any sentence imposed, the court authorizing the release may prohibit the person from having any contact with any victim. The written order releasing the defendant shall contain the court ' s directives and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order is a criminal offense under RCW ch. 10 . 99 and will subject a violator to arrest . Any assault or reckless endangerment that is a violation of this order is a felony. - Wilful violation of a court order issued under this section or of an order issued by any court of competent jurisdiction under equivalent statute or ordinance is a aross misdemeanor_ In addition the person violating such order is subject to the penalty provided in section 9 . 02 . 310 . A certified copy of the order shall be provided to the victim. Araefc4li n c-rdews 2 SECTION 2 . Section 9 . 02 . 304 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec . 9 . 02 . 304 . Same--Violation of a protection order. Whenever an order for protection is granted under RCW ch. 26 . 50 and the respondent or person to be restrained knows of the order, a violation of the restraint provisions or of a provision excluding the person from a residence is a gross misdemeanor . In addition the person violating such order is subject to the penalty provided in section 9 . 02 . 310 'P,--. SECTION 3 . Section 9 . 02 . 310 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec . 9 . 02 . 310 . Same--P—Contempt of Court. seet=�enq Violations of sections 9 . 02 . 302 , 9 . 02 . 304 , 9 . 02 . 306 , and 9 . 02 . 308 may also constitute contempt of court , and are subject to the penalties prescribed by law. SECTION 4 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause cr phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity �irr-tectimrc or�ex; 3 or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 5. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN WEAPONS VIOLATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. :!)2-7t_ amending Section 9.02. 104 of the Kent City Code to provide that violations of the prohibition against possessing weapons capable of producing bodily harm are to be punished as gross misdemeanors. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington amending Section 9 . 02 . 104 of the Kent City Code relating to the penalty for certain weapons violations . WHEREAS, prior to the enactment of ordinance No . 3172 , which became effective June 21, 1994 , a violation of Section 9 . 02 . 104 of the Kent City Code relating to weapons was a misdemeanor. WHEREAS, ordinance 3172 amended this Section of the Code to make a violation of the provision a gross misdemeanor. WHEREAS, additional language in this Section also refers to a violation of the provision as a misdemeanor as opposed to a gross misdemeanor, creating a potential conflict 4n the penalty for a violation. WHEREAS, the language in Section 9 . 02 . 104 should be amended to remove the conflict and clarify that a violation is a gross misdemeanor, consistent with state law, NOW, THEREFORE, ZU��, 2 . Any person who by virtue of his office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, mainta_n public order or make arrests for offenses while in =he performances of such duty; 3 . Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person; 4 . Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the ccmmiss_on of a felony; or 5 . Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state Governments . SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this crdina-ce should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court cf competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstituticnali--,, shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . . SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thir=y (30) days from and after its passage; approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 .. 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. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BEER INSTITUTE ASSISTANCE FUND DONATION - keeEPTANG 2 . 47cceptan'ce Y TATEMENT: =ThePublic Safet�Rcommittee. raeomms"dsr 0 of Beer Institute donation;,, uthorization for Mayor 9� to sign related documents; establish outh Conference budget; and authorization to transfer funds remaining from the 1994) Youth Conference for use for the 1995/96 Youth Conferenceluo 'w This is the fourth year for the Youth Conference and the City has an opportunity to obtain funding from the Beer Institute to assist us in this endeavor. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos and letter 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Staff and Public Safety Committee 11/21/95 (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $8 100 00 approximately SOURCE OF FUNDS: contributions and fees 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3N CITY OF ,Jinn White, Mayor M E M O R A N D U M TO: KELLI ROGERS ` cc: Lt Lorna Rufener Mary Ann Kern Lori Keller FROM: NANCY MATHEWS SUBJECT: COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR ACTION Beer Institute Assistance Fund Donation Authorization to Establish 1995/96 Youth Conference Budget DATE: AUGUST 17 , 1995 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force has received notice of a fourth year of funding from the Beer Institute Assistance Fund in the amount of $5, 000 which will require Council approval to accept. Legal forms are being routed to the Mayor for signature, via the City Attorney' s office. Once the forms are received, the Beer Institute will release the funds. ALSO: We would like to have the Council approve the acceptance of contributions and fees, transfer any remaining revenues from the 1994/95 youth conference account, and authorize the expenditure of funds for the 1995/96 Youth Conference. We anticipate revenues in the approximate amount of $8 , 100 . Thank you for your assistance. Attachment: Beer Institute Letter of Intent yc95pbdg 22011h AVE SO IKEN]. \SIIIN(;ION 9S032.51895!'TELEPHONE 1120619 i9-11001R\X 0559-1434 � ELK" BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND August 8. 1995 Ms. Nancy Mathews Kent Drinking Driver Task Force 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent. WA 98032 Dear Ms. Mathews: I am pleased to inform you that your organization has been approved for funding in the amount of$5.000 by the Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund. The Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund was designed to enable local organizations, such as yours, to develop creative and effective programs to tight substance abuse. We believe that the purpose for which your grant was sought is an excellent example of this community effort and involvement, and will assist other communities who seek to implement similar programs. Enclosed please find a "Hold Harmless Agreement," a "Publicity Agreement," and a "Tax Identification Form," all of which must be signed and returned promptly to us before we can issue you a check. If you have any questions pertaining to these agreements, please feel free to contact Molly McGinley for more information. The Beer Institute Community Assistance Fund is only one the many programs sponsored by the Beer Institute and its members to combat substance abuse. I have enclosed our 'Commitment to the Future' brochure describing these activities and offer this information to you as yet another resource in your efforts to help the youth of your community. I wish you continued success in your endeavors. Since ly yours./ L Ravm d J. McGrath Chair an Enclosures 1225 Eye Street. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 737-2337 M E M O R A N D U M TO: JAN TOOLSON FROM: Drinking Driver Task Force KPD Community Education Unit SUBJECT: Contribution DATE: 10/16/95 . ------------------------------------------------------------------- The DDTF/ Youth Conference division of the Kent Police Department Community Education Unit has received the attached check in the amount of $ 5,000 from Beer Institute ommuni y Assistance un Please deposit into account # #175 N65 000 2104 670099 Thank you. 1281 BEER INSTITUTE COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUND ' 1225 EYE STREET,N.W. 15.3/540 WASHINGTON,DC 20005 PAY O RDEROF The City of Kent Drinking Driver Task Force $ 5,000.00 Five thousand----------- -----------------------and------- ----- --No/100 ----- —---- --- --- ---DOLLARS FOR Grant — --- 1iE00 1 2a 1i"d 1:0 540000 301: 3 6111 1 7 0 4a 9 7 so Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar ma nr 1. SUBJECT: SPRINGWOOD GRANT 2 . SUMMARY STAT ENT: he Public afet Committeesh" -- - cceptance of t e Springwoo -King ounty Housing Grant and authorization for the Mayor sign necessary documentss, a.* 1. Contract for Social Services #D17 : Acceptance of $148, 228 reimbursing (monthly) for salary/benefits of two bike patrol officers assigned full-time to the Springwood development, as well as telephone, printing, office equipment, and bicycle maintenance/supply costs. 2 . Lease Agreement: Agreement at no cost, for the Police Department to be provided an apartment/"storefront" at the Springwood site. A standard lease agreement involving termination, damages, right of entry, and hold harmless clauses must be executed. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Staff and Public Safety Committee 11/21/95 (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED_: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 30 KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Committee Members Jim Bennett, Chair Tim Clark Christi Houser FROM: Chief Crawford DATE: November 0, 1995 RE: Springwood-King County Housing Grant The Kent Police Department has been awarded the Springwood-King County Housing grant. We are requesting acceptance of the grant and authorization for the Mayor to sign necessary documents: 1. CONTRACT FOR SOCIAL SERVICES #D17: Acceptance of $148,228 reimbursing (monthly) for salary/benefits of two bike patrol officers assigned full-time to the Springwood development, as well as telephone, printing, office equipment, and bicycle maintenance/supply costs. 2. "LEASE AGREEMENT': Agreement, at no cost, for the police department to be provided an apartment/"storefront" at the Springwood site. A standard lease agreement involving termination, damages, right of entry, and hold harmless clauses must be executed. Thank you for your consideration. EC:klr Contract Number D-17 CONTRACT FOR SOCIAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the Housing Authority of the County of King, hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Authority", and the City of Kent, hereinafter referred to as "the Agency", whose principal office is located at 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent WA 98032-5895. WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has determined the need to have certain social services performed for its residents but does not have the manpower or expertise to perform such services, and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority desires to have the Agency perform such services pursuant to certain terms and conditions, now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services to be Performed by Agency, The Agency shall perform those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. In performing such services, the Agency shall at all times comply with all Federal, State and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the handling of any funds used in connection herewith. 2. Compensation and Method of Payment The Housing Authority shall pay the Agency for services rendered according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The total amount to be paid shall not exceed $148,228. 3. The Agency Budget. The Agency shall apply the fiends received under this Agreement within the maximum limits set forth in this Agreement and according to the budget itemized on Exhibit B. The Agency shall request prior approval from the Housing Authority whenever the Agency desires to amend its budget by transferring funds among the budget categories. 4. Duration of Agreement. The Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing December 1, 1995, and ending November 30, 1996, unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. 5. Independent Contractor. The Agency and Housing Authority agree the an independent Contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create a relationship of employer and •': between the parties hereto. Neither the Agency nor any employee of the Agency shall be to any benefits accorded Housing Authority employees by virtue of the services providc<' tMi this Agreement. The Housing Authority shall not be responsible for withholding or crier,. deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State Industrial Ir ur,: Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of ttn emplover with respect to the Agenc_ employees of the Agency. 6. Indemnification. The Agency shall indemnify, defend and hold the T',,:;:;; Authority, its officers, officials, and employees, from any and all claims, injuries, losses, or suits including attorney's fees, arising out of or in connection with the perfornor ics- this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the negligence of tl,e Authority. 7. Insurance. A. The Agency shall procure and maintain in full force throuah4 ::;. duration of this Agreement comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum co of$500,000.00 per occupance/aggregate for personal injury and property damage. Sai'' (, :{ shall name the Housing Authority of the County of King as an additional named insured a1:1 stall include a provision prohibiting cancellation or reduction in the amount of said policy except upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Housing Authority. Cancellation of the recniired insurance shall automatically result in termination of this Agreement. B. In addition to the insurance provided for in Paragraph A abo,.::. :he Agency shall maintain or insure, that its professional employees or contractors r.::rntain professional liability insurance in the event that services delivered pursuant to this A,,r: -^n::nt, either directly or indirectly, involve providing professional services. Such professional insurance shall be maintained in an amount not less than $500,000.00 combined single l ;,-- --,I-r claim/ aggregate. For the purpose of this paragraph "professional services" shall services provided by a physician, licensed psychologist, or other licensed professional. C. Certification of coverage as required by Paragraphs A and B above wall be delivered to the Housing Authority within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. Housing Authority of the County of King Social Services Contract Page 2 of 4 7. D. The Housing Authority acknowledges, accepts and agrees that the City of Kent is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), a self-funded pool that provides liability protection for a number of municipalities in the State of Washington and that Kent's continued membership in WCIA shall constitute full satisfaction of the insurance requirements of subparagraphs 7 A,B,C above. A synopsis of Kent's coverage with WCIA is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 8. Record Keeping and Reporting. A. The Agency shall maintain accounts and records, including personal, property, financial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the Housing Authority to ensure proper accounting for all funds contributed by the Housing Authority to the performance of this Agreement and compliance with this Agreement. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 40.14 and by the Housing Authority. C. The Agency shall submit monthly program accomplishment reports (Exhibit C) which compare actual vs. projected accomplishments and expenditure rates. Projected performance measures and expenditure are listed on Exhibit C. This report shall be submitted monthly, along with the Agency's request for reimbursement which shall be submitted on The Agency's letterhead. 9. Audits and Inspection. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the Housing Authority or any other government agency so authorized by law during the performance of this Agreement. The Housing Authority shall have the right to an annual audit of the Agency's financial statement and condition. 10. Termination. This agreement may at any time be terminated by either party by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice of intention to terminate the same. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Agency shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, or any person seeking the services of the Agency to be provided under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, mental status or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Housing Authority County of King Social Services Contract Page 3 of 4 12. Assignment and Subcontract. The Agency shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the service contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the Housing Authority. 13. Entire Agreement. This agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and no other Agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Agreement. 14. Notices. Notices to the Housing Authority of the County of King shall be sent to the following address: Housing Authority of the County of King 15455 - 65th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98188 Notices to the Agency shall be sent to the address provided by the Agency upon signature line below. DATED this day of 1995. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE THE CITY OF KENT COUNTY OF KING BY: NAME: Jim White EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JIM WILEY TITLE: Mayor ADDRESS: 220 Fourth Avenue South ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Kent, WA 98032-5895 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: BY: Housing Authority of the County of King Social Services Contract Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF WORK KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Scope of Services to be Provided by Agency: The Agency shall furnish the residents of the Housing Authority of the County of King communities of Valli Kee Homes and Springwood Apartments, drug elimination services, employing the community policing concept, including, but not limited to, the following: The Kent Police Department will operate a police substation on site in Springwood Apartments staffed by two full time police officers providing security and protective services. The substation will serve residents of both Springwood Apartments and Valli Kee Homes. The officers will be responsible for on-site law enforcement by foot, bicycle and car patrol and will collect data on crime activities. The officers will intervene in problem-solving efforts with individuals and the resident councils to prevent crimes from occurring. The officers will attend all "Working Together" Team meetings and coordinate efforts with other members of the Team. The Officers will communicate regularly with the housing management staff to assist residents in need of services. In addition, the officers will do other community outreach efforts with special attention to youth activities. The Kent Police Department agrees that it will not reduce its current level of police services to the public housing developments, particularly in the areas of community policing, patrol, criminal investigations, records, dispatch and special operations. The Kent Police Department will cooperate with King County Housing Authority to eliminate drug-related crime in Housing communities based upon the Drug Elimination Grant written proposal as the Plan of Operations to establish the manner and method of performance for community police services to be provided. The Kent Police Department will participate in semi annual program evaluation based on program goals as stated in the Drug Elimination Grant written proposal. Either party to the contract may amend the scope of the plan of operations through written request for an amendment. The Executive Director of the Housing Authority and the Kent Police Chief shall provide final determinations regarding the establishment of an amendment to the plan of operations. Activity/Service to be Provided by Kent Police Department A. Police Substation Per Site Activity/Service to be Provided Number served per month 1. Resident Contact (Walk-in's &Telephone) 20-100 Residents 2. Walking/ Bicycle Patrols Number of Patrols per each site 3. Community Policing Contacts Springwood Apartments 100 people Valli Kee Homes 25-35 people 4. On-view Contacts / investigations 10-20 EXHIBIT A -- SCOPE OF WORK KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Page 2 5. Self-initiated field Activities (prevention/ mediation/ intervention) 10-20 per substation 6. Enforcement Contacts/Patrol Assists /Traffic/ As they occur Reports/Follow Ups etc. B. Crime Prevention Education & Services Activity/Service to be Provided Number programs per month 1. Blockwatch Springwood 1 per Quarter per site Valli Kee 1 per Quarter per site 2. Home Security Surveys targeted Springwood 1-3 per Quarter Valli Kee 1-3 per Quarter 3. Childhood Safety Program Springwood 2 per Year per site Valli Kee 1 per Year per site 4. Youth Prevention Activities Springwood 2 per Year per site Valli Kee 2 per Year per site 5. Coordinate Community Policing Prevention activities with and support the activities of As needed and requested on site recreation and social service programs 6. Housing Staff Crime Prevention, Security 1 per Semester per site & Safety Education Programs 7. Provide advice in the planing and implementation As requested of other grant-funded security programs with Housing Authority C. Community Services Activity/Service to be Provided Number served per month 1. Attend Resident Council Meetings I per month per site and maintain communication lines with resident leaders 2. Attend Housing Management Staff weekly and as necessary meeting 3. New Program Development As needed 4. Resident Consultations - 1 on 1 As needed EXHIBIT A — SCOPE OF WORK KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT Page 3 _ 5. Interface with other public agencies providing services to residents as needed D. Reporting to Housing Authority Activity/Service to be Provided Type and Frequency of Reporting 1. Prepare monthly progress reports Submitted with invoices to DEG Coordinator 2. Maintain a calendar of officer's schedules in On going Housing Office 2. Report to Housing management concerns As needed and incidents of drugs and drug related crime occurrence and non-emergency criminal activities in the communities. Coordinate crime reduction efforts 3. Provide requested public information which deals As requested with criminal activity in the Housing Authorities communities. 4. Respond to written requests for services or As needed information 5. Provide quarterly reports and semi annual crime As requested by DEG Coordinator data for Semi Annual and End of Year Reports including success stories and suggestions for improving the program In addition, Kent Police Department Department agrees to attend meetings of the Drug - Elimination Project TEAM as called by the Housing Authority each month. Kent Police Department further agrees to be part of the information and referral network established in the Drug Elimination Project. EXHIBIT B -PROJECT BUDGETAND PAYMENT SCHEDULE 1995-1996 Kent Police Department Project Budget: Services Provided: Amount Allocated Enforcement: 2 - Step A Police Officers $141,328.00 Police Bicycle repair $ 800.00 Telephone $ 1,200.00 Printing/ Mailing $ 1,000.00 Ofiice Furniture $ 500.00 Supplies $ 500.00 H-P Laser Jet III Printer $ 900.00 Police Signnage, keys, locks $ 2,000.00 Total not to exceed: $148,228.00 Payment Schedule Date: Amount: December 31, 1995 $12,352.33 January 31, 1996 $12,352.33 February 28, 1996 $12,352.33 March 31, 1996 $12,352.33 April 30, 1996 $12,352.33 May 31, 1996 $12,352.33 June 30, 1996 $12,352.33 July 31, 1996 $12,352.33 August 31, 1996 $12,352.33 September 30, 1996 $12,352.33 October 31, 1996 $12,352.33 November 30, 1996 $12,352.37 Total $148,228.00 EXHIBIT C -- REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Invoice: The Agency shall submit an invoice to the Housing Authority ten days after the close of each month. The invoice format is attached and labeled in Exhibit C-1. Client Data Report: For each service category as defined in this Agreement, the Agency shall submit a "Client Data Report: within 10 working days after the end of each calendar month. The Client Data format is attached as Exhibit C-2. Monthly Narrative Report: The Agency shall submit a Monthly Narrative Report" within 10 working days after the end of each calendar month. The NNlontlily Narrative Report is attached and labeled Exhibit C-3. Semi Annual and Annual Evaluation Reports: The Agency shall submit a Semi Annual and Annual Evaluation Report within ten working days after June 1, 1996 and November 30, 1996. The Semi Annual and Annual Evaluation Report format will be provided by the Housing Authority and will include a summary of actual project expenditures per the attached report. Monitoring: The Housing Authority will request a scheduled visit to the Agency from time to time to monitor contract progress. Coordination: The Agency will be expected to work as a team member of the "Working Together Project" -- attend "Team Meetings monthly," do appropriate information and referral for clients with other team members, and coordinate efforts ,k,;0, t-t,,,,si„g Authority on-site management. EXHIBIT C-1 INVOICE, WORKING TOGETHER PROJECT Name and Address of Contractor Kent Police Department v Contract Number: D- Amount Requested: for services provided during month of 1995-1996. Total Amount of Contract Budget: $148,228.00 Reimbursement to date: --- Requested this month: Balance: Name: Title: SIGNATURE: Date: AGENCY # 175-4230-0-105- o c c o 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o c olo 0 0 0 0 o c olc is o c c o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o olo a o c o olc c to lc c o c o c � e OI O O O O O O O O O O C O C O �Oi00 O O10 O 010 OIO O IO O O C G < < 11 I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 � cIo c'o c�c c o c c � c o 0 olc cio-c�cTc o 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 o jo 0 0 o c olo lc c to to 0 oc�o o clo io c o 0 0 0 0 0 IIII I11 _ � I III I I�IT(_j ; 1 �I I I - I Q m m i 1 � I� LLl L ! 1 Tk F � �Ir ; iIt _ _' _ IIiIi_I �-� liCll I I II I II of i� L LIL ,I� ICI_'' _'_ �i L , r- -,-�-r-'--�--��, h-I ,� _� � T I ,I _� 72 �- :' I •I a ul ' u _ I � ] ' uI.O u 8 S = TI - i u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ojo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oc olo o c o0 0 0 00 o G ob'� OOOOO OOOO G'O�OO OO JI0000 I _. — — �I ' I LI r -- +I _��. I - __ 7-7 I I I I 1 - z'- FF� _I —I of `a vl —'._�5�' C dl< u .6 u u Imo!<I cf 1A < mcji O S O O O O O S O S O S O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OI L O 0 0 0 I N J a Y ' I i I i F - -+FI 11-11- - -r r AOL a 9 - _ < tG U C < m U < fiu < EXIIIBIT C-3 NARRATIVE REPORT AGENCY: MONTH: 1. Describe highlights of program activities: (Use additional paper if necessary.) 2. Performance standard (s) not on target and explanation. 3. Major problems identified and solutions/ corrective actions. 4. Other comments. LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, dated , 19_(for reference purposes only), is made by and between King County Housing Authority, a Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter called Lessor and The City of Kent, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington(hereinafter called Lessee): WITNESSETH: 1. Premises: Lessor does hereby agree to lease to Lessee for use as a Police Substation those certain premises 6omprising approximately 850 square feet, shown outlined in red on Exhibit A attached hereto, situated in Kent Washington and legally described as follows: Unit#402346- 13125 274th Street in the Springwood Apartments(27360 129th Place SE, Kent, WA 98031) 2. Term: 2.1 The Lease shall begin on December 1, 1995, and continue until November 30, 1996, or sooner if the Contract for Social Services between the parties executed on the above date hereto is sooner terminated or if otherwise terminated as provided for in this lease agreement. 2.2 If Lessor cannot deliver possession of the premises to Lessee on the above commencement date, provided that delivery of premises can be made within a reasonable time frame, this lease shall not be void or voidable; but, in that event, there shall be a proportionate reduction of rent covering the period between the above commencement date and the time when Lessor can deliver possession. 3. Rent: No rent shall be paid. The consideration will be public services. 4. Taxes and Utilities: Lessor shall pay the cost of reasonable utilities including heat, lights,water,sewer and garbage. Lessee shall be responsible for using all utilities in an energy conservative manner, including ensuring that the heat and lights are turned down/off when the space is not being utilized. Telephone service, if desired, shall be provided at the sole cost and expense of Lessee. 5. Maintenance/Damages: Lessee shall provide janitorial services to the leased premises and shall maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. Lessee shall be responsible for any and all damages to the leased premises resulting from its activities beyond ordinary and reasonable wear and tear. Lessor shalt present Lessee with an itemized bill for such repairs for which Lessor believes Lessee to _. be responsible. Lessee shall agree to pay or secure a mutually agreeable payment schedule within thirty (30) days of the written receipt of the amount owing. Lessor agrees to maintain and repair the roof, outside walls, floors and structural part of said premises, provided that any damage to the roof, outside walls, floors or structure caused by acts of the Lessee, its agents or invitees, shall be repaired by the Lessor and billed to the Lessee. 6. Improvements/Alterations: No alterations or remodeling to or upon the premises shall be made. 7. Siens: Lessor shall provide directional signs for Lessee in the lobby and at the premises, as mutually agreed upon. All other signs placed by Lessee on or about the premises shall be subject to Lessor's prior written approval. 8. Fixtures: All fixtures attached to the premises solely by the Lessee may be removed by the Lessee at any time provided (a) that the Lessee shall restore the premise to their condition prior to the installation of the fixtures, normal wear and tear 9. Indemnity and Hold Harmless: Lessor and Lessee mutually agree that in any and all causes of action and/or claims, or third party claims, arising under the terms, activities, use and/or operations of this Lease, including the leased premises, each party shall be responsible to the other only to the extent of each other's comparative fault in causing alleged damages or injuries. Notwithstanding the provisions of 12 (below), each party agrees to indemnify the other to the extent of the indemnitor and indeninitee's proportional share. As to any and all causes of actions and/or claims, or third-party claims, arising under the sole fault of a party to this Lease, said party shall have a duty to defend, save, and hold the other party harmless,%Iand upon failure to do so, said party shall pay reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred by the other party to this Lease in defense of said claims and/or actions. 10. Insurance: The Lessor acknowledges, accepts, and agrees that the Lessee is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA), which is a self- funded pool that provides liability protection for numerous municipalities in the State of Washington, and Lessee will provide a synopsis of coverage by WCIA upon request of the Lessor. 11. Arbitration: Lessor and Lessee agree that should any dispute arise concerning this lease both patties shall submit to binding arbitration. 12. Subletting and Assignment lessee shall not sublet tite whole or any part of the premises, nor assign this lease or any interest thereof, without the prior written consent of the Lessor,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13. Damage or Destruction: In the event the premises are damaged to such an extent as to render them untenantable in whole or in part and Lessor elects to repair or rebuild, the work shall be prosecuted without unnecessary delay. Rent shall be abated while such work is in progress, in the same ratio that the portion of the leased premises that is unfit for occupancy shall bear to the whole of the leased premises. If after a reasonable time the Lessor shall fail to proceed to repair or rebuild, Lessee shall have the right to declare this lease terminated by written notice served on the Lessor. In the event the building, in which the leased premises are located, shall be destroyed or damaged to such extent that in the opinion of the Lessor it shall not be practical to repair or rebuild, it shall be optional with Lessor to terminate this lease by written notice to Lessee within twenty days after such damage or destruction. 14. Liens: Lessor and Lessee shall keep the premises and the building in which the premises are situated free from any liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished,or obligations incurred by Lessee or Lessor. 15. Right of Entry: Lessor reserves and shall at any and all reasonable times have the right to enter the premises,inspect the same, to show the premises to prospective purchasers, mortgagees, or tenants, and to repair the premises and any portion of the building of which the premises are a part an may for the purpose erect scaffolding and other necessary structures when reasonably required by the character of the work performed, all as providing that the entrance to the premises shall not be blocked thereby, and further providing that the business of Lessee shall not be interfered with unreasonably. Except for emergencies, Lessor shall give ten (10) days' notice before entry to repair the premises. For each of the aforesaid purposes, Lessor shall at all times have and retain a key with which to unlock all of the doors, in, upon, and about the premises, excluding Lessee's vaults, safes, and files, and Lessor shall have the right to use any and all means which Lessor may deem proper to open said doors in an emergency, in order to obtain entry to the premises without liability to Lessee except for any failure to exercise due care for Lessee's property. Any entry to the premises obtained by Lessor by any of said means or otherwise shall not under any circumstances be construed or deemed to be forceful or unlawful entry into, or a detainer of the premises, or an eviction of Lessee for the premises or any portion thereof provided said entry relates to emergency purposes as aforesaid. Lessee agrees to allow "to lease" signs of reasonable size to be placed in and remain upon the exterior or interior of the premises during the last ninety days of the lease term. 16. Hazardous Substances: 16.1 Lessor and Lessee mutually agree that no generation, use, release, handling, transportation, treatment or storage of hazardous substances(Hazardous Substances)exist on the premises. Lessor acknowledges and fully discloses that the premises contain no Hazardous Substances as defined by applicable law. Upon the execution of this lease, if Lessor subsequently discovers the existence of Hazardous Substances on the premises, Lessor shall disclose this material fact and act within full compliance of all applicable laws, regulations and safety practices governing Hazardous Substances. Lessor and Lessee further mutually agree that in any and all causes of action and/or claims, or third-party claims, arising under the terms, activities, use and/or operations of this lease, each party shall be responsible, to the extent of each other's comparative fault in causing the alleged damages or injuries. Notwithstanding paragraph twelve (above), each party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Lessor or Lessee, its appointed and elected officials, employees, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, and expenses, including reasonable attoiney's ees, asserted against Lessor or Lessee by a third party, including without limitation, any agency or instrumentality of the federal government,state or local government, for bodily injury, including death of a person, physical damage to or loss of use of property, or clean-up activities (including but not limited to investigation, study, response, remedial action,or removal), fines or penalties arising out of or relating to the presence, release, or threat of release of a Hazardous Substance existing or emanating from the premises, except that which existed or emanated from the premises prior to Lessee's possession of the premises or to the extent caused by the act or omission of Lessor. 16.2 Definition of Hazardous Substances: "Hazardous Substances" as defined in this lease shall mean: a. Any toxic substances or waste,sewage,petroleum products,radioactive substances, medicinal, bacteriological, or disease-producing substances;or b. Any dangerous waste, hazardous waste,or hazardous substance as defined in: i. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,as now or hereinafter amended(42 U.S.C.5 9610 et seq.); ii. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,as now or hereafter amended(42 U.S.C.5 6901 et seq.); iii. Washington Model Toxics Control Act,as now or hereinafter amended(R.C.W. Chs. 70.105,70.105A and 70.10513); or C. Any pollutant,contaminants,substances,as defined above,posing a — danger or threat to public health or welfare, or to the environment,which are regulated or controlled by any federal,state and local laws,and regulation,as now or hereafter amended. 17. Waiver of Subrogation: Lessor and Lessee agree that they shall not make a claim against or seek recovery from the other for any loss or damage to their Property,or the property of others,resulting from fire or other hazards covered by fire and extended coverage insurance and each hereby releases the other from any such claim or liability regardless of the cause of such loss or damage so covered by insurance. In the event of any increased cost or impairment of ability to obtain such insurance, the party suffering such increased cost or impairment may terminate such waiver and release upon written notice to the other party hereto. Such waiver is conditioned upon the parties having had their respective insurance companies issue a policy or endorsement providing that the waiver or release of subrogation rights shall not adversely affect or impair such policies or recovery by the insured thereunder. 18. Eminent Domain: Should the premises or any portion thereof be taken for public use by right of eminent domain with or without litigation, any award for compensation and/or damages, whether obtained by agreement prior to or during the time of trial, or by judgment or verdict after the trial, applying to the leasehold estate created hereby other than that portion of said award, if any, based upon a taking of the Lessee's leasehold improvements or affixtures, shall belong and be paid to Lessor, and Lessee hereby assigns,transfers,and sets over to Lessor all of the right,title,and interest which it might otherwise have therein. In the event that the portion of the premises so taken shall be more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the entire area leased by Lessee, Lessee shall have the option, to be exercised by written notice given to Lessor within thirty (30) days after the date of notice taking, to terminate this lease or relocate at Lessor's expense. If either less or more than twenty-five percent (25%0 of the premises is taken and the Lessee does not elect to terminate as herein provided, the rental thereafter to be paid shall be reduced in the same proportion as the amount of leased floor space is reduced by such taking,and Lessor shall make such reconstruction of the premises as may be required. 19. Holding-Over: If,with Lessor's written consent,which such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, Lessee holds possession of the premises after the term of this lease or any extension thereof, Lessee shall become a tenant from month-to-month upon the terms herein specified, but at a monthly rent equivalent to the then prevailing rent payable by Lessee at the expiration of the term of this lease or any extension thereof and subject to the continued application of the previsions of paragraph four and five herein,payable in advance on the first day of each month. 20. Surrender of Premises: At the end of the term of this lease or any extension thereof or other sooner termination of this lease, Lessee will peaceably deliver up to Lessor possession of the premises in the same condition as received, except for ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire, earthquake, act of God or the elements atone, and Lessee will deliver all keys to the premises to the Lessor. In addition, Lessee at Lessee's expense will remove Lessee's goods and effects and trade fixtures, and those of all persons claiming under Lessee,and Lessee will repair any damage resulting from such removal. 21. Costs and Attorney's Fees: If, by reason of any default or breach on the part of either party in the performance of any of the provisions of this lease,a legal action is instituted, the losing party agrees to pay all reasonable costs and ❑ttorney's fees in connection therewith. It is agreed that the venue of any legal action brought under the terms of this lease will be in the county in which the premises are situated. 22. Subordination: If a lender requires that this lease be subordinated to any encumbrance now of record or any encumbrance recorded after the date of this lease, this lease shall be subordinated to that encumbrance, if Lessor first obtains from the lender a written agreement that provides substantially the following: 22.1 As long as Lessee is not in default under this lease, no foreclosure of, deed given in lieu of foreclosure of, or sale under the encumbrance, and no steps or procedures taken under the encumbrance,shall affect Lessee's rights under this lease. 22.2 The provisions in this lease concerning the disposition of insurance proceeds on destruction of the premises, and the provisions in this lease concerning the disposition of any condenmation award shall prevail over any conflicting provisions in the encumbrance. 22.3 Lessee shall attom to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, or to any grantee or transferee designated in any deed given in lieu of foreclosure. 22.4 Lessee shall execute the written agreement and any other documents required by the lender to accomplish the purposes of this paragraph. 23. Successors and Assigns: All of the agreements, conditions and provisions of this lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, executors,administrators,successors and assigns of Lessor and Lessee. 24. Anti-Discrimination: In all services or activities, and all hiring or employment made possible by or, resulting from this lease, there shall be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, age (except minimum age and retirement provisions), race, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. This requirement shall apply to but not be limited to the following: employment, advertising, lay-off or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Lessor shall not violate any of the terms of R.C.W. 49.60, Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or King County Code 12.16.020. Any violation of this provision shall be considered a violation of a material provision of this lease and shall be grounds for cancellation, termination, or suspension, in whole or in part, of the lease and may result in ineligibility for further agreements. 'I lie Lessor will also coatply with other anti-discrimination laws or requirements of any and all jurisdictions having authority. 25. Quiet Enjoyment: Lessor covenants and agrees that Lessee, upon performance of all Lessee's obligations under this lease, shall lawfully and quietly hold, occupy and enjoy the premises during the term of this lease without disturbance by Lessor or by any person having title paramount to Lessor's title or by any person claiming under Lessor, subject to the other terms and provision of this lease and subject to all mortgages, underlying leases and other underlying matters of record to which this lease is or may become subject to and subordinate. 26. Notices: All notices by either party to the other shall be in writing and may be delivered personally or by certified or registered mail to the following addresses: To Lessee: Kent Police Department 220-4th Avenue South Kent,Washington 98032-5895 To Lessor: King County Housing Authority 15455 65th Avenue South Seattle,Washington 98189 or at such other address as either party may designate to the other in writing Prom time-to- time. 27. Time: Time is of the essence of this lease and of each and all of the agreements,conditions, and provisions herein. 28. Entire Agreement: This lease contains all covenants and agreements between Lessor and Lessee relating in any manner to the leasing, occupancy and use of the premises and lessee's use of the building and other matters set forth in this tease. No prior agreements or understanding pertaining to the same shall be valid or of any .force or effect and the covenants and agreements of this lease shall not be altered, modified or added to except in writing signed by Lessor and Lessee. "` 29. Interpretation - State Law: The titles to paragraphs of this lease are for convenience only and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. This lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 30. Severabilily: The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this lease shalt not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or void. 31. Representations: Lessor shall be in no way responsible for the acts of the Lessee, its members, agents or guests and no member, officer, employee, other agent or invitee of Lessee shall be considered agents of Lessor for any purpose. 32. Addenda: Any addendum attached hereto and either signed or initialed by the Lessor and Lessee shall be deemed a part hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have executed this lease on the dates specified below. LESSEE: The City of Kent By: Date: Name: Jim White Title: Mayor LESSOR: King County Housing Authority By: Date: Name: Jim Wiley Title: Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: By: Date: STATE OF WASHINGCON ) )SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that signed this instrument, oil oath stated that he was authorized by the King County Executive to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the of King County, Washington to be the free and voluntary act of said County for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date: NOTARY PUBLIC in and For the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASIIINGTON ) )SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be . the of the Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the tree and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned and that he was authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under my hand:aid official seal this ,day of 19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CORRECTIONS FACILITY FOOD SERVICE EMENT- REWEST FOR EXTENSION--- -- y( 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public afet Committee-harm xten�5°°t�e orrections Facility Food Service contract for an additiona ear, as al]_owyed in Section 11. 01 +Q the agreement Financially Ue �b been very pleased with e� food service provider, as well as by quality and quantity. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos, letter, and Section it 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Staff and Public Safety Committee 11/21/95 (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 3P KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Bennett, Public Safety Committee Chair Tim Clark Christi Houser FROM: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police DATE: September 26, 1995 RE: Extension of Food Service Agreement at the Kent Corrections Facility On December 31, 1995, our food service agreement with Consolidated Food Management will expire. Pursuant to the renewal option as outlined in Section 11.01 of the agreement, Consolidated Food Management has requested to extend the contract for an additional year. We have been very pleased with the services provided by Consolidated Food Management and recommend that their contract be extended through 1996. Thank you. EC:klr KENT CORRECTIONS FACILITY Sept ber 20 , 1995 TO : CHIEF CRAWFORD FROM: CAPT . C.E . MILLER SUBJECT: FOOD SERVICE CONT y The attached letter is a request from Consolidated Food Management to continue their service for our facility per section 11 . 01 of the contract . I am very pleased with the services provided and we have not had any problems , therefore, I recommend to extend their contract for 1996 . If you agree, please forward their request to the Public Safety Commitee for their approval . Thank you. �l/� Consolidated Food Management, Inc. 2448 76th Avenue S. E. • Mercer Island, WA 98040 • (206) 232-9771 September 14, 1995 Captain Chuck Miller City of Kent Police Department 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Captain Miller: On December 31, 1995, our food service agreement with the City of Kent Jail will expire. Consolidated Food Management,Inc. would appreciate the opportunity to continue our service to the City of Kent. Pursuant to the option of renewal as outlined in section 11.01 of our agreement, Consolidated Food Management, Inc. requests that our contract with the City of Kent be continued for an additional year. We have enjoyed working with your department. We appreciate the cooperation and support you and your people have given us over the past years, and sincerely hope we can continue to serve the City of Kent for years to come. Sincerely, CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC. An Aicholas Vice President reasonable time and place, and sha1L have the right to conduct on-site administrative reviews of the food service operation. 10.07 CFM shall conduct its operations on the City' s premises in the most professional and efficient manner possible consistent with the City's policies, facilities and good food service practices; subject to applicable government regulations. 10.08 Prior to the start of each budget year, CFM shall prepare a detailed - projected food service operating budget for the City's approval. CFM shall exert its best efforts to meet the approved budget subject to the effects of events and costs beyond CFM's control. Section 11 . Term, Renewal, 'Termination 11 .61 This Agreement shall be effective for the term of twenty-four (24) months beginning January 1 , 1990, with an additional one 0) year option for renewal. 11 .02 This Agreement shall he reviewed annually; however, either party may terminate this Agreement with cause by giving the other party not less than sixty (60) days advance notice of intention to terminate at any time during the term of this Agreement. 11 .03 Upon termination of this Agreement, CFM shall vacate all parts of the premises occupied by CFM in the same condition as made available to CFM, _. reasonable wear and tear, fire and other casualty Loss excepted. Section 12. Notice 12.01 Any notice required hereunder shall be deemed to have been given if delivered in writing personally to, or sent by registered or certified United States mail and addressed as follows: (a) The City: City of Kent Attn: Kent City Clerk 220 - 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (b) CFM: ConsoLi.dated Food Management 2448 - 76th S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Section 13. Independent Contractor, Entire Agreement 13.01 CFM is an independent contractor and shall not be, or be deemed for any purpose to be, an employee or agent of the City. 13.02 Consolidated Food Management is a professional food service organiza- tion and under the terms of this Agreement between the City of Kent and Consolidated Food Management, the City of Kent has complete control of all policy, operational and service procedures over the food service program. -6- ;Y4 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , _1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SAFETY AWARDS CONTRACT RENEWAL �`��g',� �l ��'^ {� °n 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Safety Award drawing eligibility is based on attending monthly meetings and not being involved in an on-the-job injury for that month. This is simply an awareness claim reduction tool with Monthly Safety Material Service. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and letter from Victor House Publications 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee on 11/22 /95 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: annual cost in 1996 to be $29 .271 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Workers Compensation Trust Funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: - Council Agenda Item No. 3Q '� I.A^WIN, KEN / KENT70/PR - HPDesk print . -- - --- -- - - - - ---- --- - --- - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - Message . Dated : 10/24/95 at 0954 . 'abject : Operations Committee--Safety Awards Contract Renewal ` :nder: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR Contents : 2 . Part 1 . _.10M: Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR TO: Kelli O' DONNELL / KENT70/OD CC : Brent MCFALL / KENT70/OD Sue VISETH / KENT70/PR .art 2 . ill Please schedule this 1996 Safety Award contract renewal from Victor '._cruse Publications for 1996 with the Operations Committee at next opportunity. --story, we started a pilot safety awards program July 1, 1994 for 200 nployees to end 7-1-95 . The last 6 months or 1995 cost of this contract was $9 , 901 . 36 which included 1/2 of a lot of one time cost items for the program such as 18 safety films and bulk safety awareness material . Then expanded and extended the program via Consent Calendar approval on 1-17-95 , =ceding some 400 plus employees and running it through December 1995 for an additional cost of $24 , 515 . 54 . The intent was to include all 600 plus employees z one drawing; however, the one drawing approach generated some discontentment om our original 200 pilot program participants . For an additional fee of $1, 322 . 97 we were able to purchase sufficient additional awards to continue -he 3 separate drawings through all of 1995 . 5y eliminating some of the one time costs for safety films and safety materials , our 1996 renewal can be continued $29 , 271 . 00 rather than the $35 , 739 . 87 which spent for the same program in 1995 . We have reduced our claims and most importantly our claims cost for the past years , we do not want to see another 1993 . The Safety Awards are an awarness A accountability tool, a side benefit plus is an attitude 'mcrovement in "Sharing the Rewards" . recommend we continue the Safety Awards program for 1996 , funding to continue as a ''claim prevention expense" of the Workers Ccmcensac-on Trust Fund, thus no General Fund budget impact . hanks , Ken Chatwin victor House Publications Gaorge P, Crory _ VicQ ProslUAnt. 14730 60th Ave. Everett. WA 96208 T`4Gr-6Dr',e M6)3.37 2615 Fps(X6)337 9297 July 20, 1995 Mr. Ken Chatwin City of Ktrit Safety System for 1996 The following will be provided by Genrge P. C'rory to the City of Kent For the Period beginning Januaryart 1991; d continuing thru Cecer:tbar. 199rS: 7. '14 T'ostPrs for twelve months each 1 24 Table top mini posters for twelve months each ,9 3- 241 Safrry Postings for twelvemonths each — ��sis �C,is.�6r).Jc6� ,i��1 GuCG( 1911 4 12 Monthly meeting outlines / 5. 400 Pocket ('a1Pndars fro twelve months each 6• 250 additional perforated "D & I" rards for twelve Y. 12 vide(-A, titles to he confirmed by you shortly. months east 8. 200 sc'ratrh rards for twelve months each 9. 20 Safety Briefs for twelve months each 276 Awards as follows; d�s�tidrrl�d 120 ® $18.79 level • SlCsl/AdC>'s�'E( �/Oti�� • '% 8 GWO.00 It. Il / I "le /� GG 24 0 $7.5 level--��YS /l✓!IFoed 12 © $I00.00 level 1 Also, 75 awards catalogs — i{u/1 G�/y/lcp�fry Mi.a, %d7r c s �6�VitL dr61 Total price$29,271, plus shipping and handling and applicable ;axes. Thank you once more for your businecv. — � ��L�,9%✓ �A �'��ZN George P. Croryy,�, �/C � J d SZ=ST Stii02i:0 oy 1Bli©L9LtiiST 3SWH tt0 LJ1() :wo�j Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT RENEWAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to execute a renewal ;i-ZW annual Third Party Claims Handling Contract for all L&I claims, as approved by the Operations Committee on November 22, 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS• copy of contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 11/22/95 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:_ NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Annual deposit of $25 850 paid cquarterly SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3R ( IP.TWIN, KEN / KENT70/PR - HPDesk print . `,.gssage . Dated: 10/24/95 at 0808 . Subject : Operations Committee-Work Comp . Claims Contract Renewal :nder : Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR Contents : 2 . Part 1 . Ken CHATWIN / KENT70/PR TO : Kelli O' DONNELL / KENT70/OD .... CC: Brent MCFALL / KENT70/OD Sue VISETH / KENT70/PR in 2 . 7elli : --'_ease Schedule this 1996 renewal with Scott-Wetzel for Workers Compensations _aim handling with the Operations Committee at the next available dat it 1996 contract .compares very favorable with the expiring 1995 contract , cost of handling each time loss claim increased from $435 to $460 or only $25 . I-)st of medical only claims handling are increasing $5 . 00 from $90 to $95 per Haim, our (loss Control Services) Safety Engineering Services which are on Tin as needed basis increase from $90 to $95 per hour. Their annual, administrative fee did increase from $2000 to $2300 , which is not unreasonable z my opinion. Payment remains equal quarterly installments based on 750 of ,t�.iarges based on estimate of 97 claims, 31% as less time, all subject to a Final audit adjustment . it clai;ns in 1995 to date are not as good as they were in 199a when we really did have an excellent claim reduction year . In 1993 we had 103 claims and 371 ^f them were loss time, in 1994 we fell off to 88 claims and only 26% of them =_re loss time, 1995 to date we have had 74 claims and 311 have been loss time . 1'ne 310 _s not as good as the 26% , but still better than 37a . The dollar amount of claims has no bearing on the cost of this contract . .zis contract contains the corrected verbage this year that has been added in the past with all parties then initialing, thus I can recommend the Committee oprove the renewal of our Third Partv_ Claims Administrator contract with cott-Wetzel Services , Inc . Thanks, Ken Chatwin SERVICES , INC. ` Risk Management Planning and Support f .. October 12 , 1995 ; Mr . Ken Chatwin Risk Manager City of Kent 220 South 4th Avenue Kent , Washington 98032 RE : 1996 Agreement Renewal Dear Ken: Enclosed you will find two copies of the renewal agreement for claims administration of your workers ' compensation program for the coming year . I do not have a copy of last year ' s agreement , so I an, relying on you to check for the specific language change that is _ suppose to be included . Additionally , I have enclosed a Medical Summary Report showing over 28% savings on your billed medical . The automated bill adjusting system that SWS has developed guarantees 100% of your medical bills are adjusted to the lowest acceptable level . As the summary de- tails , this system saved the City of Kent nearly $25 , 000 in a recent twelve month period . For . renewal , the calculations were based on an estimated volume of 97 claims , with 31% of those claims being time loss . The minimum and deposit is set at 85% of what the expected claim ' s volume will generate . SWS proposes a Minimum and Deposit of $ 25 , 850 . This minimum includes 58 , 550 for 90 hours of safety and loss control work at _$-95__an hour . The minimum also includes an administrative fee of ' $ 2 , 300 . The balance of S15 , 000 would be audited at a rate • -- of 8460 _per-tine loss claim and $95 per medical on1y ._ �J� As I know you are aware , Federal Way has a newly hired "returning veteran of SWS" . _ want to arrange for lunch with you at your earliest convenience to introduce you to the new Branch Manager , Jeff Stromberg . Jeff is a very "hands on" manager and I am confi- dent you will be hearing from him on a regular basis . 33801 1st Way South • Suite 351 • Federal Way, Washington 98003-6219 Phone: (206) 661-0272• Fax: (206) 661-7098 Mr . Ken Chatwin October 12 , 1995 Page Two We both know the process for getting the agreement through Council . Give me a call if you have any questions but also to let me know when you will be available for lunch . Sincerely yours , Anne Milam Account Executive Enclosure CC : Mr . Jeff Stromberg , SWS/Federal Way Mr . Doug Alsop , Tampa Corporate 9/26/95 REPORT SYSTEM ANNE 17 : 08 : 40 MEDICAL PAYMENTS BY CLIENT SEA 9/01/94 - 9/01/95 CLIENT NAME : CITY OF KENT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT BRANCH AMOUNT BILLED AMOUNT PAID SAVINGS OF TOTAL SEA 86 , 201 . 86 63 , 325 . 62 24 , 876 . 24 28 . 20 TOTAL" 88 , 201 . 86 63 , 325 . 62 24 , 876 . 24 28 . 20 % AGREEMENT AGREENIM�IT, made and entered into this - day of 1995, by and between Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., a Washington Corporation with its principal place ofbusiness at 101 E. Kennedy Blvd Suite 2980 Tampa, FL 33602 hereinafter referred to as "SWS") and City of Kent with its principal place of business at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98031 (hereinafter referred to as "Client"): WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Client maintains a self-insured plan to cover its workers' compensation liabilities in the State of Washington; and SWS has agreed to perform certain services in connection therewith, as herein set forth: NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing January 1, 1996 and ending December 31, 1996. The Agreement may be terminated by either party giving not less than sixty(60) days written notice to the other party except for non-payment of fees or change in jurisdictional or other administrative regulations affecting this Agreement. 2. During the period of this Agreement, SWS shall represent and act for Client in matters pertain to the liability of Client for claims based on event pertaining s which occur during the term of this Agreement under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Washington. During the term hereof, S`NTS shall devote its best efforts in the conduct of its duties hereunder. Such duties shall be the follo`ving: (a) Receive notice of and create files on each claim reported and maintain these files for Client. (b) Investigate all claims as required to determine their validity_ and compensability. (c) Determine proper benefits due on compensable cases. (d) Make timely payment of benefits due, in accord with payment procedures as established from funds provided by Client. Client 95-SIAVC-070 -1- Scott Wetzel Services.Inc. will be wholly responsible for providing such funds as may be required for these payments. (e) Prepare documentation and defenses of cases considered non- compensable and assist selected legal counsel in preparation of cases for hearings, appeals, and/or trial. (f) Maintain and provide Client pertinent data on all- claim payments. (g) Provide monthly and/or quarterly computerized loss reports in a tailored format, as mutually agreed at inception of the program, showing descriptive data, details of each month's payments, total payments, reserves and total experience for each claim. Data reporting services, in accordance with this Agreement, are limited to the reporting format, content and number of copies specified in Addendum One. Subsequent expansion and/or modification of services including changes in report distribution, at the option of SWS, may be subject to additional charges. (h) Provide excess insurers such reports as they may reasonably require within specific excess coverage reporting requirements. (i) Provide information and assistance as may be reasonably required for preparation and filing of all reports required by any state agency in connection with Client's approved self-insured status. (j) File with the appropriate State Administrative Departments such information as is required on each claim. (k) Provide loss control services, defined as loss control, consulta- tions, and surveys as mutually agreed. (1) To provide services as outlined in the SWS Client Service Procedures. 3. In consideration of the services to be performed by SWS hereunder, Client shall pay to SWS: 95-SI/WC-070 -2- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc- (a) An annual minimum and deposit fee of Twenty-Five Thous-md Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($26,850), payable quarterly in advance. The first payment will be due within twenty (20) Clans of commencement of this Agreement, and subsequent payments will be due within twenty (20) days of the beginning of each quarter thereafter. (b) The minimum fee will be subject to adjustment by performance of claim count audits on the basis of SNVS claim data and application of the following per claimant fees: Ninety-five. Dollars ($95) for each workers' compensation medical only; Four Hundred Sim Dollars ($460) for each workers compensation indemnity. An administrative fee of Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($2,300), and a fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($8,550) for loss control services, will be included in each fee adjustment calculation. (c) SWS has agreed to make available up to Ninety (90) hours of loss control services during the contract term, payment for which is included in the fee stated in Section three (3) articles (a) and (b). Additional loss control will be available at the rate of One Hundred Five Dollars ($105) per hour. (d) Additional services requested by Client will be compensated at such fee and payment terms as mutually agreed by both parties. (e) Invoices not paid on a timely, basis will be surcharged a finance fee of 18% annual interest rate. In the event Client fees are not paid within sixty (60) days of the date of invoice, SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option, after ten (10) days written notice to Client. 4. Audit adjustments will be submitted at the end of the annual term and quarterly thereafter based upon the cumulative claim count as 95-SI/NVC-070 -3- Scott Wetzel Senices,Inc. contained in the computer reports regtured by section N (g) of the Agreement. A final adjustment of fee will be made as of eighteen months following the end of the contract term. Any claims occurring during the term of this Agreement which are reported more than eighteen (18) months following the end of the contract term will be subject to additional fees for administration to be agreed upon by the parties. 5. SWS will Indemnify and Hold Harmless Client from any and all loss, cost, fines, assessments, penalties or other expense incurred by City and/or its employees as a result of the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of SWS and/or its employees in connection with ful- filling its obligation under this Agreement. . 6. Client will Indemnify and Hold Harmless SIVS from any and all loss, cost, fines, assessments, penalties incurred by S`XTS and/or its employees as a result of the willful misconduct or negligent acts of the Client an its employees in connection with fi,l fill;g its obligations under this Agreement. 7. Client agrees: (a) To pay to SWS the fees provided for hereunder. (b) To pay all allocated loss expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SWS. Allocated loss expense is defined as all attorney's fees, court and/or hearing costs, Austin Commission representation, costs of depositions. documents and exhibits, witness and expert fees, medical and engineering appraisal, surveillance, independent adjusting, photography and other incidental and special costs incurred to evaluate compensability of claims. (c) To pay any sales or use taxes or other taxes or government assessments or duties relating to this Agreement or to payments or services to be rendered under this Agreement in addition to all other payments set forth in this Agreement. If SIVS makes payment of any such taxes or government assessments or duties. Client shall promptly reimburse SWS. 95•SI/WC•070 -4- Scott IVetzel Services,Inc. This Paragraph does not apply to federal or state taxes based upon net income which are imposed on S`VS. (d) To pay all loss control expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SNVS. Loss control expense is defined as extraordinary travel costs, such as air or other common carrier fare, overnight meals and lodging; requested training materials; safety promotional materials; assaeiated shipping and handling; and other incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of loss control services. (e) To be solely responsible to provide to SWS all funds for the payment of claims and allocated loss expense. (f) To advise SIVS on a timely basis of all pertinent excess insurance reporting requirements and/or reporting modifications for all annual periods for which claim administration services are provided. (g) This Agreement is entered into with the understanding that existing Federal, State, or other jurisdictional regulations will remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement. Client agrees that should administrative or other costs of service provided hereunder be substantially increased as a result of modifications in existing law, enactment of new legislation, or promulgation of new administrative guidelines. SI"'S service fees may be renegotiated during the Agreement term. If revised fee agreements cannot be reached, SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option, after thirty (30) days written notice to Client. S. All claims and related files generated by SWS as a result of its activity under this Agreement shall remain at all times the property of Client with the exception of any supporting data required by SWS to make such accountings to Client or excess insurers as are required in this Agreement. 95-SI/%VC-070 Scott Wetzel Services.Inc. SWS will retain claim files for one year following date of closure. _ Thereafter, files will be returned to Client or forwarded to such loca- tion as maybe designated for continued storage. Upon SWS' request, closed claim files will be returned for additional administration as may be required. In the event of termination or non-renewal of SNVS services, and assumption of continuing administration of claims by Client, SWS will transfer all open and retained closed claim files to Client, or its designee, as of the effective date of termination. 9. SWS is retained by Client only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement, and its relationship to Client shall be that of an independent contractor. 10. Client agrees during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following its termination it will not employ any person employed by SWS during the term of this Agreement without the prior written consent of SWS. 11. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if given in writing and by registered or certified mail to Client or to SWS at the addresses first set forth above or to anv other address of which written notice of change is given. 12. The waiver by SWS or Client of the breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter enforcing any such provision. 13. This agreement is for the period provided for in Section 1. Any continuation or renewal of this Agreement shall be the subject of further negotiation between the parties. Upon termination of this - Agreement, in whole or in part, in accordance with Section 1, and/or non-renewal, in entirety or of any major operating subsidiary, entity or portion thereof, Client shall have the option to: (a) Assume all open claims pending for the terminated or non- renewed portion of the program, as of the effective date of termination or non-renewal, provided, however, that SWS shall 95-SI/wC-070 -6- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc. be entitled to receive its full fee for all claims entered into its data files prior to the effective date of termination or non- renewal; or (b) Upon agreement, by both parties, of a rate of compensation, require SWS to continue administration, to conclusion, all open claims associated with that portion of the program terminated or non- renewed. ,Such rate of compensation shall thereafter be reviewed by the parties on an annual basis and shall be the subject of mutual agreement between the parties. Adequate funds shall continue to be made available to SIVS by Client for the payment of claims and allocated loss expense until .all claims are liquidated. 14. The obligation of SWS to perform its duties hereunder is conditioned upon Client's cooperation with SWS with respect to the activities of SWS including, but not limited to, responding to SWS' requests for information promptly; meeting with SWS and/or third parties, as may be needed; malting decisions on matters which, in the professional opinion of SAVS, should be made by Client; providing excess carrier reporting requirements; the payment of funds into the Account referred to in Section 7; and performance by Client of all other obliga- tions of this Agreement. 15. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. This provision shall not prohibit SWS from subcontracting for any of the activities to be performed by SWS without any requirement of obtaining the approval of Client provided, however, that any such assignment or subcontracting shall not relieve SWS of its obligations to Client under this Agreement. 16. Client shall not disclose any terms or conditions of this Agreement relating to prices or fees to any third party or transfer a copy of this Agreement or disclose the contents thereof to any third party. 17. Any unresolved dispute between Client and SWS which may arise from the obligations of either party as set forth herein, will be resolved by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be binding upon Client 95-SI/wC-070 '7- Scott wetzel Services,Inc. and SWS. Each party will select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot agree within thirty (30) days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having competent jurisdiction. Each party will pay the expenses it incurs and bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally. The laws of the State of Washington will apply. 18. This Agreement sets, forth all of the terms, conditions, and agreements of the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all such former agreements which are hereby declared terminated and of no further force and effect upon the execution and delivery hereof. There are no terms, conditions, or agreements with respect thereto, except as herein provided and no amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing and executed by the parties. All terms. conditions, definitions as set forth in the Agreement will be interpreted under the laws of the State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate counterparts as of the date first above written. ATI`EST: CITY OF KENT By Date Signed Title ATTEST: SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC. By Date Signed Title Senior Vice President 95-SIAVC-070 8 Scott Wetzel Senrices,Inc. r1DDENDL-iN2 ONE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EE-NT ("Client") AlN7 SCOTr WE"I'ZEL SERVICES, LAIC. (SWS) EFFECTIVE: JAN'UARY 1, 1996 Report Freciuency Distribution Loss Experience Per Claim Monthly 2 - Client By Fund Per Department 1 - McDonald & Co. Loss Experience Per Claim Monthly 2 - Client By Fund Per Department 92 Year & Greater Current Month Payments Monthly 2 - Client City Overall 1 - McDonald & Co. Statistical Analysis Quarterly 2 - Client By Category 1 - McDonald & Co. 1099s Annually 1 - Client END - 95-SI/WC-070 -9- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc. �14 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1995 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITE-OFF 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their No ember 22 meetingq A thorization is wed to write_of $1.846. 25 in uncollectible accounts receivable for 1995, The write-off amount is primarily composed of accounts for businesses or individuals we are unable to locate or that have gone out of business. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Customer Service 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3S To: Tom Vetsch From: Patty Roseto Date: Friday, October 27, 1995 Subject: Council Approved V7rite-offs The Council approved write-off request for miscellaneous accounts receivable has continued to decline since 1992. In that year, I requested that 852,351.59 be written off. This year that amount has been reduced to only $1,846.25. In 1992, with the large write-off request, it was determined that the City would benefit from the use of a collection agency. That strategy paid off for the City for the last few years. Collections went from $52,351.59 in 1992 to $8,520.11 in 1994. At the end of 1994, with the upgrading of several key computers in the Customer Services area, it was determined that it would once again be beneficial to the City to do back to in-house collections. Once again, our strategy paid off. with a more personal touch to our letters we have been successful in not only reducing the amount that should be written off, but often we are getting our payments from our customers quicker. The following is a summary of the write-off requests for the last four (4) years: 1992 853,351.59 1993 24,079.83 1994 8,520.11 1995 1,846.25 The attac*hed bar chart provides you with a visual breakdown of the last four (4) years. I have also attached a copy of our current collection procedures as well as a detailed list of the accounts to be written off along with a brief description of the service rendered by the City. If you need any additional information please let me know. Thank you. The City's Collection Process (Miscellaneous Invoices) 1. Invoices are mailed throughout the month. Invoices are all due on the lath (fifteenth) of the following month. 2. Each month on or about the I5th (fifteenth) of the month a collection letter is sent out on each delinquent account. The letters vary in intensity based on the level of delinquency. If a phone number is available then the customer may be called. J. If after several attempts we have still not received payment from the customer the department that issued the invoice is notified. At this point the issuing department may choose to write a letter or call the customer directly. 4 Accounts Receivable Write-offs (by year) 60000 50000 -- - - - __ - 4-, 40000 - - - c 0 30000 - - _ _ _ - E � 20000 - - - - - - 10000 -- - - - 0 1992 1993 1995 Year 14-Nov-95 1995-Write-off Proposal 14:45:24 Fund Org Date Customer Amount Service Invoice Comments 001 6200 11-Dec-94 Stamey, Eric 200.00 Camp Waskowitz 14725 linable to Locate are 14723 linable to Locatec 310.00 Da COl 6200 31-Dec-94 Robinson,SheriY 1994 - 001 Total: 510.00 001 6660 01-Mar-95 Stewart, Connie 541.00 March Rent 14866 Claim Dispute 001 2261 07-Apr-95 Classic Claims Service, Inc 7.62 Photograph Duplication 15006 Not Cost Effective 1995 - 001 Total: 548.62 Grand Total -001: 51,058.62 410 5550 22-Dec-94 Wright Services Landscapi 74.21 Hydrant Permit 14652 Out of Business 410 - 1994 Total: 74.21 410 5550 18-Apr-95 Wright Services Landscapi 713.42 Hydrant Permit 14947 Out of Business 410 - 1995 Total: 713.42 410 - Grand Total. 787.63 Total Accounts Receivable: $1,846.25 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: - 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE AND CDBG LINE OF CREDIT 2 . suMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their November 22 meeting, authorization is requested to approve the budget adjustment ordinance for 1995 totaling the gross budget adjustment of $2 , 354, 614 and to approve a line of credit in an amount not to exceed $250, 000 to cover _ - costs at year-end until they are rei rsed by King County. n r. C`O wt wt u r� b e✓e(opw evit 81 oc k cr a# 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayene Miller, Finance Division Director and worksheets 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3T q _�' Date: December 7. 1995 To: Operations Committee From: Mavene Miller. Finance Division Director ,���- 1� Subj: 1995 Budget Adjustment Ordinance and CDBG Line of Credit Authorization is requested to approve the 1995 gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling (52,354,614). The budget adjustments really total S13,977.386 but the removal of the drainage bond sales and debt payments of(S 16,332,000) were moved to 1996 which caused the net negative effect. This ordinance is primarily a housekeeping adjustment consolidating individual budget items previously approved into one adjusting ordinance. Please note that $I 1,7-)6.602 of this amount has been previously approved by Council and is primarily for the golf course bond sales, golf capital projects, golf debt service. and LID 346. The balance is primarily for capital projects or other Council approved items as detailed. The amount of$2,240,784 has not been previousiv approved by Council, but must be approved to be in compliance with the State auditor's requirements. Revenues. grants. charges to city departments or fund balances provide sources of funds for the budget adjustments. The amount of 61.019.583 was listed in the 1995 budget document for the pass-through metro rate increase but was not included in the figures. Sewer revenue covers this cost. Of the amount not previously approved. 575,000 for contracted building code plan reviews was discussed with the Operations Committee before a new position was approved. Plan check fees cover this additional cost. In addition, 560,455 was needed to cover actual facility costs and is covered by an allocation to other departments. Facility costs of 5736.420 were not allocated properly as revenues and expenditures to the facility budget. The amount of$500,000 was previously budgeted in the street corridor fund but needed to be moved to storm drainage with no net dollar effect. The balance of 5169,152 was for miscellaneous correcting of cost allocations. previously approved court expenses from budget savings, $17,600 for Fire Relief& Pension Board approved find expenses. 514,346 for the youth "Summer Trails Project" sponsored by King County, and 5148,228 for Springwood Bike Patrol grant approved in 1996 budget but moved to 1995 since it begins December 1. 1995. The attached pages show, by fiend. the council authorization dates of the amounts previousiv approved and those not previously approved. In addition to the budget adjustments, a line of credit in an amount not to exceed S250.000 is needed for housing and community development funds to cover the year-end expenditures until they are reimbursed by King County. Council Action: Approve the budget adjustment ordinance;for 1995 totaling the gross budget adjustment-of ($2,354,614). Approve a line of credit in an amount not to exceed S250,000 to cover housing and community_ development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County. mmied/mm 1116ocwpd CITY OF KENT 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FUND CARRYOVER BUDGET ORDINANCE#3202 ORDINANCE# TOTAL ____ ___________________ ________________ ___________ ___________ General Fund 37,114,130 354,443 37,468,573 Street 3,083,328 274,107 3,357,435 Youth/Teen Programs 390,648 390,648 Capital Improvement 3,575,262 194,886 3.770,145 Criminal Justice 35,381 1,464,300 157,568 1,657,249 Environmental Mitigation 397,935 342,871 127,945 868,751 Housing & Community Dev 510,007 462,282 19,537 991,826 Other Operating Projects 743,517 30,000 382,303 1,155,820 Voted Debt Service 1,841,093 1,841,093 Councilmanic Debt Service 2.057,113 27,386 2,084,499 Special Assessment 2,544,963 2,544,963 Street Capital Projects 34,191,271 2,809.463 3,504,721 40,505,455 Park Capital Projects 5,291,540 514.235 821,574 6,627,349 Other Capital Projects 3,237,931 1,355,588 (417,425) 4,176,094 Water 32,953,259 11,260,579 491,926 44,705,764 Sewerage 41,131,580 19,835.768 (14,397,464) 46,569,884 Golf Course 11,133,274 4,731,337 15,864,611 Equipment Rental 102,000 1,576,673 605,221 2,283,894 Central Services 703.263 3,671,170 937,028 5,311,461 Fire Equipment Fund 792,000 (200,000) 592,000 Insurance 4,640,044 12,693 4.652,737 Firemen's Relief& Pension 184,100 17,600 201,700 Economic Development Corp 36,424 36,424 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 119,297.684 110,715,308 (2,354,614) 227,658,378 Less: Internal Services 9,808,144 608,282 10,416,426 Other Transfers 8,294,551 1,132,554 9,427,105 Internal Transfers 11,098,425 2,692,803 13,791,228 TOTAL NET BUDGET 119,297,684 81,514,188 (6,788,253) 194,023,619 16-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT GENERAL FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 37,114,130 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: 745 Microfilming Budget (1) Reserve for Fire Equipment Capital Project (2) (255,000) Project Lighthouse 1995 (3) (1,576) CCS Emergency Shelter Program (4) 6,029 Previously Approved with Council Date: Initiative Petition 101-Ordinance(Curfew) 04/052—1 24,475 086 COPS FAST Grant 04/19 69,500 Municipal Court Clerk& Security Staffing 04/18 69,500 Plans Examiner Position 07/05 39,000 Cashiering/Business License Positions 07/18 15,000 Drinking Driver Countermeasure Grant 09/05 (4,886) Meridian Annexation 10/03 271,535 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: Contracting out"building code" plan review overruns 75,000 Municipal Crt-Crt Commisioner&Probation Sevice 54,067 POB/Facility Rental Charges 44,899 Springwood Grant-Bike Patrol (11.77 7 Summer Trails Project 14,346 Total Budget Adjustments 354.443 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,468,573 16-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT GENERAL FUND (CONTINUED) 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUITIORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinanc: 36,421,683 Beginning Fund Balance 2,467,064 _._ Ending Fund Balance (1,774;6I1) 37,114.130 Budget Adjustment Source: Sales &Use Ta 5 x 2� 0 Business Licenses .000 Building Permit-Commercial/Ind 35,000 Civil Service Exams-Police 5 00 Plan Check Fees -,000 County Grant 14,246 Vehicle Insurance Proof- Admin 2.J"8 Traffic/FTA Fines 91,608 DWI Fines 1.911 Criminal Traffic Fines 18,144 Non-Traffic Criminal 8,947 Court Interpreter CS 27I NSF Collection Fees 128 Transfer-Capital Improvement Fund (248,000) Transfer-Criminal Justice Fund (1,576) Ending Working Capital (Decrease from 1,774,617 to 1,690,269) 34,348 --------------- Total 354,443 TOTAL. SOURCES 37,468,573 (1)Camnver of 1994 budget to cover microfilm expense charged to 1995 budget in error. (2)Reduce transfer amounts from CIP fund to General Fund for f re equipment rental fees. (3)To redistribute funds per department agreement- (4)Budget approved during 1994. unspent funds carried forrvard to 1995. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT STREET FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 3,083,328 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Asphalt Overlay (1) 264,986 Previously Approved with Council Date: Cashiering/Business License Positions 07/13 7,368 Reverse Cashiering/Business License Positions 07/18 (5,847) Meridian Annexation 10/03 7,600 Total Budget Adjustments 274,107 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,357,435 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 2,781,732 Beginning Fund Balance 595,715 Ending Fund Balance (294,119) 3,083,328 Budget Adjustment Source: Ending Working Capital 2174,107 Budget Change from 294,119 to 20.012 ---------------- Total 274,107 TOTAL SOURCES 3,357,435 (l)Budget approved during 1994, funds carried fonvard to 1995. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENI' YOUTH/TEEN PROGRAMS 1995 BUDGET ADTUSTMENTS SOL71�CE AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES '7UN { .= EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 390,648 Budget Adjustments 0 Total Budget Adjustments TOTAL EXPENDITURES 390,648 SOURCES OF FUNDING 390.648 Budget Ordinance 390,648 Budget Adjustment Source: --------------- Total 390.648 TOTAL SOURCES 07-Dec-95 CITY OF KENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 3,575,262 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Reserve Fire Equipment Capital Project (1) (255,000) Previously Approved with Council Date: King Property Acquisition 02l07 ,000 25 Kent Commons Gas Water Heater Replacement 04/04 25,000 International Park-Yangzhou Pavilion 04/04 50,000 Municipal Court Security Upgrades 04/18 12,000 Feasibility Study-Saturday Market Location 06/06 10,000 Saturday Market Facility Acquisition 07/18 27,386 Rewiring of Resource Center 08115 50,000 Meridian Annexation 10/03 34,000 Senior Center Parking 11/20 144,500 Total Budget Adjustments 194,886 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,770,148 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 3,853,771 Beginning Fund Balance 207,802 Ending Fund Balance (486,311) 3,575,262 Budget Adjustment Source: Sales &Use Tar 82,420 Leases-Long Term 2,666 Ending Working Capital 109,800 Budget Change from 486,311 to 376,511 ----------------- Total 194,886 TOTAL SOURCES 3,770,148 (I)Reduce transfer amounts from CIP fund to General Fund for fire equipment rental fees. 16-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 1,168,300 Carryover Budget 35,381 Internal Transfers 296,000 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Confidential Fund (1) (20,000) Unallocated Criminal Justice Projects (1) (116,000) Drinking Driver Cnn=e Program Grant 94/95 (2) (I2,417) Criminal Justice Funding (3) (2,506) Previously Approved with Council Date: Kent Municipal Court Video Arraignment 11/15i94 52,672 Kent Municipal Court Video Arraignment 11/15/94 2.000 COPS FAST Grant 04/05 53,550 Police Explorers 05/02 6.000 Drinking Driver Countermeasure Gmt 7/95-6/96 09/05 22,081 1995 DARE Project 09/05 8.860 Task Force Youth Conference-95 12/12 8,100 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: Spring-wood Grant-Bike Patrol 148,223 Internal Transfer-Police Explorers 2,000 Total Budget Adjustments 157,568 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,657,249 16-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUND (C0I TL`IUED) 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 903,223 Carryover Budget 35,381 Internal Transfers 296,000 Beginning Fund Balance 447,476 Ending Fund Balance (182,399) 1,499,681 Budget Adjustment Source: 228 Direct Fed Grant-HUD 148,464 COPS FAST Grant 4_,664 State Grant-Drinking Driver 9(614 MVET-CJ-High Crime (892) MVET-CJ-Child at Risk (000) MVET-CJ- Domestic Abuse (1.100) 1,100 Program Fees 7,714 Contributions 000 Miscellaneous 11,284 Sales-Mist-Taxable 084 86 Transfer-General Fund 20,000 Transfer-Confidential Fund (2Q000) Transfer-Traffic Equipment Regional Justice Center (25,000) Gain/Loss on Assets (33.000) Beginning Working Capital (42,000) Ending Working Capital 41,534 (Decrease from 182,199 to 140,865) Internal Transfer- Police Explorers 2.000 ----------------- Total 157.568 - TOTAL SOURCES 1,657,249 (I)To correct 1995 budget for Criminal Justice Projects. (2)Adjust preliminary 94/95 budget for Drinking Driver Countermeasure Program Grant to actual grant approval and allocation. (3)Redistrbution of Criminal Justice funding of motor ve'nicle excise tax. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT ENVIRONMENTAL FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 342,871 Carryover Budget 397,93; Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Waste Reduction/Recycling Grant (1) (li,473) Previously Approved with Council Date: Special Recycling Events Grant 03i07 11.030 Waste Reduction/Recycling Grant Program 04104 116,207 Hazardous Waste Agreement 05/16 14.131 Total Budget Adjustments 127,94J TOTAL EXPENDITURES 368,751 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget 'rdinance 306.276 Carryover Budget 397.935 Beginning Fund Balance 283,:34 Ending Fund Balance (25 1,939) 740,806 Budget Adjustment Source: State Grant-Department of Ecology 33.6 5 q County Grant 130.31' Kin,County Recycling ('t °07� Totai 127.94: TCTAL SOURCES 368,7 i (1)Budget approved during 1994, funds carried forward to 1995. (2)To correct carryovers for state & county grants for waste reduction/recycling program. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING - EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 462,282 Carryover Budget 510,007 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: 1995 Block Grant Program (1) 19,537 o J -------1------- Total Budget Adjustments TOTAL EXPENDITURES 991.826 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 462,282 Carryover Budget 510,007 972,289 Budget Adjustment Source: Federal Grant(State)-CDBG 19,537 ------------- Total 19,537 TOTAL SOURCES 991,826 (1)To adjust the 1995 budget for contingencv money distributed after adoption of the 1995 budget for the block Brant. 16-Nov-SS CITY OF KENT " OTHER OPERATING PROJECTS FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 30,000 743,517 Carryover Budget Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Downtown Transit-Dem (1) 3Q000 Public Bldg Major Maintenance (2) 100,000 Previously Approved with Council Date: Regional Justice Center Project 02r21 190,000 Kent Commons Gas Water Heater Replacement 04/04 25,000 Growth Management Fund 06/06 37,303 Total Budget Adjustments 82':03 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,155,820 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 30,000 Carryover Budget 743.517 Beginning Fund Balance "`�1 Budget Adjustment Source: Building Permit-ComtneriaUInd 190,000 Growth Management Grant -`''0- Transfer-Unrestricted Street 30,000 Transfer-Capital Improvement 125,000 Total 382,303 TOTAL.SOURCES 1,155,820 (I)To transfer 1995 budget for downtown transit-deco from street capital projects fund to other operating projects fund. (2)To transfer 1995 budget for general government repair& maintenance from a capital project fund to other operating proiecs fund. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENI' COUNCILMANIC DEBT SERVICE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 2,057,113 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved with Council Date: Saturdav Market Facility Acquisition 07/18 27,386 Total Budget Adjustments 27,386 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,084,499 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 2,057,113 2.057,113 Budget Adjustment Source: Transfer-Capital Improvement 27,386 --------------- Total 27,386 TOTAL SOURCES 2•084.(99 1S-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT VOTED DEBT SERVICE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADTUSTIENTS SOLRCE OF AiJT .O=ATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 1,841,093 Total Budget Adjustments 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1.841.093 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 17341,093 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 1,8111.093 Budget Adjustment Source: Total TOTAL. SOURCES 15-Nov-55 CITY OF KENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND L995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance ; No. 3202 2,544,963 Budget Adjustments Total Budget Adjustments 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,544,963 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 2,028,745 Beginning Fund Balance 3,093,286 Ending Fund Balance (2,577,068) 2,544,963 Budget Adjustment Source: ------------ - Total TOTAL SOURCES 2,544,963 75-Nov c4 CITY OF KENT STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 2,809,463 Carryover Budget 34,191,271 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Downtown Transit-Derr (1) (30,000) Corridor Improvement Fund (2) (500,000) Central&Pioneer Guardrail 08/03/93 2J,62-5 Previously Approved with Council Date: 196th Corridor-East Leg (3) 7,212 224th-228th Corridor (3) 29,029 272nd Corridor-General (3) 75,5,2' Commute Trip Reduction 10/94-12/94 06/16/92 14,485 Commute Trip Reduction 01/95-03/95 06/16/92 14,485 Commute Trip Reduction Interlocal Agreement 06/16/92 (735) Frager Road Guardrail 02/07 2,550 Frager Road Guardrail 02/07 61,100 Sidewalk Street Vacations 04/04 71,118 King County Regional Justice Center 04/18 500,000 King County Regional Justice Center 04/18 (105,000) LID 346-212th(WV-SR167) 09/05 3,041,079 School Sidewalk Improvements 11/07 8,900 UPRR Crossing on 196th Corridor 12/12 127.350 METRO Grnt for Transportation Impvts(Sidewalk 12!12 107,000 Internal Transfer- Downtown Sidewalk Replacement 57.000 Total Budget Adjustments 3,504,721 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 40,505,455 16-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT STREET CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (CONTINUED) 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING . SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 2,809,463 Carryover Budget 34,191,271 37,000,734 Budget Adjustment Source: Federal Grant-Guard Rails 63,650 Federal Grant(State)- General Street 23,625, State Grant- General Street 3.168.429 Countv Grant 135.235 Transportation Mitigation Fees 395.000 Contributions 11 L764 Sale of Land-Street Vacation 30,018 Transfer from Unrestricted Street Fund (30,000) Transfer from Street Utility (500,000) Internal Transfer-Downtown Sidewalk Replacement 57,000 Total 3,504,721 TOTAL SOURCES 40,505,455 (1)To transfer 1995 budget for downtown transit-deco from street capital projects fund to other operating projects fund. (2)To transfer funds from street utility to the 272nd corridor- (3) Per State Environmental Policy Act Ordinance 2492 07-Dec-95 CITY OF KENT PARK CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 514,235 Carryover Budget 5,291,540 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved with Council Date: Reclamation Art Project 01/03 13,200 King Property Acquisition 02/07 97,000 King County-Interurban Trail 03/07 117,874 International Park-Yangzhou Pavilion 04/04 50,000 Feasibility Study- Saturday Market Location 06/06 10,000 Kent Commons Air Conditioning 07/18 (188.000) Misc Park Improvements- 1995 07/18 (50,060) Saturday Market Facility Acquisition 07/18 600,000 Meridian Annexation 10/03 27,000 Senior Center Parking 11/20 144,500 ----------------------- Total Budget Adjustments 821,574 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 6,627,349 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 514,235 Carryover Budget 5,291,540 Beginning Fund Balance 102,455 Ending Fund Balance (102,455) 5,805,775 Budget Adjustment Source: Countv Grant 12,000 King County Open Space Bonds 117,874 Contributions 1,200 Transfer from Capital Improvement Fund 90,500 Transfer from Equipment Rental Fund 600,000 ----------------- Total 821,574 TOTAL SOURCES 6,627,349 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENI DITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES No. 3202 1,355,588 Budget Ordinance 3,237,931 Carryover Budget Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: (1) (787,000) Reserve for Fire Vehicle (2) 5,251 East Hill Fire Station Paindng/Siding (2) 19,925 Fire Station Maintenance-Painting General Government Bldg Rep/Iviaintenance ( 196,000) Police MDT Sale (4)) Previously Approved with Council Date: 12/13/94 26,799 Minitor Pager Replacement 04/18 15,400 Municipal Court Security Upgrades 07/18 302,000 Kent Commons Air Conditioning Plumbing-City Hall 0 on815 (64,000) 5 50,000 Rewiring of Resource Center 18,200 Meridian Annexation 10/03 Total Budget Adjustments (417,425) TOTAL EXPENDrIURES 4,176,094 SOURCES OF FUNDING 5 68S 88 _ Budget Ordinance 3,237,931 Carryover Budget 787,000 4,593,519 Beginning Fund Balance Budget Adjustment Source: 19,799 Fire Services- State (200,000) Equipment Rental Fees 96,000 Oain/Loss on Assets 418,200 Transfer from Capital Improvement Fund 5,251 Transfer from Fire Sealcoat -- 21,463 Transfer from Fire Hear/App 211 Transfer from Emergency Power/Cnt Beginning Working Capital (778,349) Ending Working Capital Total (417,425) 4,176,094 TOTAL SOURCES 15-Nov-95 (1)To correct 1995 reserve for Fire Equipment Capital Project budget- (2)To make adjustments for other projects within existing fund. (3)To transfer 1995 budget for general government repair&maintenance from a capital project fund to other operating projects fund- (4)To correct 1995 budget for Police MDT sale. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT WATER FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 7,547,415 Internal Transfers 3,713,164 Carryover Budget 32,953 259 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Capital Outlay Carryover (1) 21,500 Previously Approved with Council Date: King County Regional Justice Center 04/18 25,000 Manganese Water Treatment Plant Project 05/02 152,000 Cashiering/Business License Positions ' 07/18 2,455 Reverse Cashiering/Business License Positions 07/18 (1.949) LID 346-212th(WV-SR167) 09/05 139.820 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: POB/Facility Rental Charges 1,100 Total Budget Adjustments 339,926 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 44,551,764 Internal Transfer-Maneanese Water Treatment Plant Project 152,000 TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES 44,705,764 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT WATER FUND (CONTIN"UED) 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION ExPENDITURES FUNDING SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 6,885,019 Internal Transfers 3,713,164 Carryover Budget 32,953,259 Beginning Fund Balance 3,496,123 Ending Fund Balance (2,833,727) 44,213,838 Budget Adjustment Source: State Grant-General Street 139,820 Transportation Mitigation Fees 25,000 Ending Working Capital (Decrease from 2,833,727 to 2,65$621) 175.106 Total 339,926 TOTAL SOURCES 44,553.764 Internal Transfer-Manganese Water Treatment Plant 152,000 TOTAL GROSS SOURCES 44,705,764 (1)The approved portion of the unexpended 1994 capital outlay budget carried fonvard to 1995. 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT SEWERAGE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Net Budget Ordinance No. 3202 15.164,377 Budget Ordinance 91 Internal Transfers 1,131,5 8 0 rry Caover Budget 4 ,li1,530 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Corridor Improvement Fund (1) 500,000 Previously Approved with Council Date: 992 Valley Detention Basin (2) 3Q000 0, 00 King County Regional Justice Center 04/13 Drainage Utility Financial Plan 05/02 (16,332,000) Cashiering/Business License Poitions 07/13 9,324 Reverse Cashiering/Business License Poitions 07/13 (7,796) LID 346-212th(WV-SR16-/) 09/05 314,594 Meridian Annexation 10/03 11.400 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: METRO Wastewater Disposal Charges 1,019,533 POB/Facility Rental Charges 939 Total Budget Adjustments (11•397.464) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,569,334 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT SEWERAGE FUND (CONTINUED) 1995 BUDGET ADIUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING SOURCES OF FUNDING Net Budget Ordinance 14,879,841 Budget Ordinance Internal Transfers =,671,391 ,-h Caover Budget 41,131,580 B:rzinning Fund Balance 2,338,857 Enc;ing Fund Balance (2,054,321) 60,967,348 Budget Adjustment Source: State Grant-General Street 314,594 Sales General Customer 250.181 Sales-Unmetered 234,44_ Industrial Waste Surcharges (329,65=) Charges-Public Authority 40,1_2 8 Transportation Mitigation Fees ,000 992 Contributions 2,000 Proceeds-LID Bonds (5,75 ,000) Proceeds Revenue Bonds (5,564,000) Transfers In (50,000) Transfer from Street Utility 500,000 Transfer from Sewerage Fund (2.458.O1,O) Ending Working Capital(Increase from =.054,321 to 2,076.153) (2,076,153) Total (14,397,464) TOTAL SOURCES 46,569,884 (1)To transfer funds from street utilir; to -.:ie 272nd corridor. (2)Per State Environmental Policy Act Ordinance T2492 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT GOLF COURSE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUST141ENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 8,935,404 1,197,870 Internal Transfers Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: 50 Carryover Capital Outlay-Golf Portable Restrooms (l) 49;426 Project&Improvements Funds (1) Previously Approved with Council Date: 95 Golf General Obligation Bond Refunding Debt O1/17 4,644,900 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: POB/Facility Rental Charges 14,161 Total Budget Adjustment 4,731'" TOTAL EXPENDITURES 15,864;611 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 8,574,295 Internal Transfers 2.197,870 Beginning Fund Balance 654,763 Ending Fund Balance (293,654) 11,133,274 Budget Adjustment Source: Previously Approved: Proceeds- GO Bonds (45,000) Transfer from Golf Fund (:92.474 Transfer from Golf BI&R 92`{r 4 Transfer from Limited GO Bond 5.576,249 Ending Working Capital (Increase from 293,654 to 327,213 (327.218) Total 4,731,337 TOTAL SOURCES 15,864.611 (1)The approved portion of the unexpended 1994 capital outlay budget carried forward to 1995. 7 5-Nav-95 CITY OF KENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 1,576,673 Carryover Budget 102,000 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Capital Outlay Carrvover 1) 4,515 Previously Approved with Council Date: Saturday Market Facility Acquisition 07i 13 600,000 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount-. POB,'Facility Rental Charges 706 -------------------- Total Budget Adjustments 605,221 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,233.894 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 1,544,720 Carryover Budget 102,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2,392,361 Ending Fund Balance (2,360,408) 1.67-0,673 Budget Adjustment Source: Interfund Interest 18,012 Repayment of Advance 9.374 Ending Working Capital (Decrease from 2,360.408 to 1,732,573) 577,83 Total 605?21 TOTAI. SOURCES 2,283,394 (1)The approved portion of the unexpended 1994 capital outlay budget carried forward to 1995. - 16-Nov-95 ... CITY OF KENT CENTRAL SERVICES 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES No. 3,451,170 703,263 _ Budget Ordinance )20,000 Carryover Budget Internal Transfers Budget Adjustments Previously Approved with Council Date: 11/15/94 52.672 Kent Municipal Court Video Arraignment 11/15/94 2.000 Kent Municipal Court Video Attainment 06106 20,424 Graphics/Cable TV Positions Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount. (1 3;0) POB/Facility Rental Charges 736,420 DOB/Facility Nlaintance Charges- Accra Correction 126,862 Meridian Annexation Budget Alloc --- 937,025 Total Budget Adjustments �,311,461 TOTAL EXPENDITURES — --- SOURCES OF FUNDING 3,451,170 Budget Ordinance 703,263 Budget Carryover 4.154,433 Begummg Fund Balance 220,000 Ending Fund Balance Internal Transfers -. Budget Adjustment Source: 51,362 40,962 Telephone Revenue- Interfund 00 000 7360 Central Stores Revenue 500 Postage Revenue j6,620 Public Office Building Revenue 19,074 Transfer from Confidential Fund Ending Working Capital(Decrease from 0 to (19.074)) 937,023 Total 5,311,461 TOTAL SOURCES t 5-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT FIRE EQUIPMENT FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES ` Budget Ordinance No. 3202 792,000 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds: Reserve for Fire Equipment Capital Project (1) (200.000) Total Budget Adjustments (200,000) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 592,000 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 1?37.000 Begumine Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance (595,000) 792,000 Budget Adjustment Source: Equipment Rental Fees (2557000) Transfer from Reserve Fire Equipment 55,000 Total (200.000) TOTAL SOURCES 592,000 (1)To correct 1995 reserve for Fire Equipment Capital Project budget. 15-Nav-95 CITY OF KENT INSURANCE FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 4,640,044 Budget Adjustments Previously Approved with Council Date: Meridian Annexation 10/03 12.693 Total Budget Adjustments 12,693 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,652,737 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 4,717,707 Beginning Fund Balance 3,039,429 Ending Fund Balance (3,117,092) 4,640,044 Budget Adjustment Source: Ending Working Capital 12,693 Budget Change from 3,117,092 to 3.'_04.399 Total 11693 TOTAL SOURCES 4.652.737 15-Nov-95 CITY OF KENT FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND _.- 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION E-KPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 184,100 Budget Adjustments Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount: Increased Accounting Sendces & Pension Benefits 17,600 Total Budget Adjustments 17,600 TOTAL: EXPENDITURES 201.700 SOURCES OF FUNDNG Budget Ordinance 259,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2.255,613 Ending Fund Balance (?330,5li) 184,100 Budget Adjustment Source: Ending Working Capital 17.600 Budget Change from 2,330,5 13 to 2,312,913 Total 17,600 TOTAL SOURCES 201.700 t 4-Nov-55 CITY OF KENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FUND 1995 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE OF AUTHORIZATION EXPENDITURES FUNDING EXPENDITURES Budget Ordinance No. 3202 36,424 Budget Adjustments Total Budget Adjustments 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 36.424 SOURCES OF FUNDING Budget Ordinance 111 f 7 Beginning Fund Balance 44,909 Ending Fund Balance (307832) 36,424 Budget Adjustment Source: Total U TOTAL SOURCES 36.424 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 1995 Budget for adjustments made during 1995 and authorizing an additional line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) to cover expenditures . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The 1995 City budget is hereby amended to include budget fund adjustments as follows : FUND TOTAL General Fund $ 354 , 443 Street Fund 274, 107 Capital Improvement 194 , 886 Criminal Justice 157, 568 Environmental 127, 945 Housing & Community Development 19, 537 Other Operating Projects 382 , 303 Councilmanic Debt Service 27, 386 Street Capital Project 3 , 504 , 721 Park Capital Project 821, 574 Other Capital Project (417, 425) Water 491, 926 Sewerage (14 , 397, 464) Golf Complex 4 , 731, 337 Equipment Rental 605 , 221 Central Services 937, 028 Fire Equipment Fund (200 , 000) 2995 Budget Insurance 12 , 693 Firemen' s Relief & Pension 17 , 600 Total Gross Budget Adjustments (2 , 354 , 614) Less : Internal Service Funds 608 , 282 Other Transfers 1, 132 , 554 Internal Transfers 2 , 692 , 803 Total Net Budget Adjustments (6 , 788 , 253) SECTION 2. Authorization of a line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) in an amount not to exceed $250 , 000 . 00 . The funds will only be used as needed. SECTION 3 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 2 1995 Budget ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 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 Budget.ord 3 1995 Budget i I � I II I Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CARPINITO BUSINESS PARK 2 . SUMMARY ST TEMENT: aa____rgcommended by the Public Works Director, uthorization to accep of Sale for Carpinito Business Park for continuous oper on and maintenance of 43 feet of water main, 58 feet sanitary sewer, 850 feet of street improvement and 582 f et of storm sewer and release of bonds after expiration date The project is located at 84th Avenue South and South 222nd Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3U IS 208TH ST 10 e S 2097H 1 1, j ,I. ..5. wll 12TH -ST__ --I �. � 5 212TH ST - z: S 216TH ST i S 216TH ST ? { a iii ul I I { d I S m 218TH SY, 218TH ST ..... � j E- S- _ r 220TN ST A \ PROJECT LOCATION ¢t•t ' r m r / o , f � 2�22_N[ ..... r`` J S 222NO S 7 1r/ � S 2247H 3T I E- .... m I 3 w � w S 227TH FL S 228TH ST �_.dat ; S 22gTH ST 0 Z � 'mil w1 m m��I NOVRC LN S 234TH 9T " I _ . a z j N 0LE _. STc4�1 > •� srFr � .'. N CLOUDY 37 W ¢� f BOUIOrflOX NR he; 237TH 9 2367H 5T m CLODJ 3T` I F' a( j P< r ¢ PL { S 238TH zICa U GEOflGE �! w i ' SiES ST I " ..a N �I ` J 'S 240TH STD S 239TH PL M W O Gq SAM ST ¢ VFW > I Y s z_.. N c z � Z CARPINITO BUSINESS PARK TM ST ' SMITH ST W Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 108TH AVENUE WALKWAY/274TH STREET WALKWAY ACCEP '— 2 . SUMMARY ST EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works ct with Tydico, Inc. for Director# ccept as complete y ct and Wawa p ro e the 108th Avenue Walkway/274th Street j release of retainage after State releases.Y The original contract was $71,000, 000. The final construction cost was $70, 120.46. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3V CENTER a ; F.rnch Field Cou S15 W < fE 254TH ell own W 4 l * > 1 C 7 <. 7A { �•' KENT—MERIDIAN ( = r �- . ILFT S£ 256TF1 fT ^ Y l v v o " _ ". - sr 30 S W � 29 28 •V�' ��. S S W S r • 4� > < .L2VT 11\ BTr Ter,nis (I J t�. KkN7 - EMETERY " !� • i I I L I _ /. .-t! �' ¢ t SE 260TH ST ate ' SCENIC HILL 2607H ELEMENTARY ST , SCHOOL ' < (P+,U SEQUOIA® i S 262ND PL '� SCHOOL ` Atrfehc \ \ FtrldJ *� I SE 264TH S7^ N 65 � w 5 to SE 26 > < Water SE 2 PL .these ST SE 267TH 8T _ t- w SE 267TH SE 26M Z" • 8 " w ST W Sur N ., ^< O C� ♦^ in SE 268TH PL FT TY b E 269TH SE 270TH :...•� '1' SE 270TH `� ST A< s PL �� HV W F SE 27157 ST_ F _ .. y u ............. c4 3 29 Y _ SE 272ND ST o�° ` > ^ 29 28 3 32 32 = N H 274TH ST a X—CITY- PROJECT LOCATION _ fE LIMITS NEQ U B U R N "" st SE 281ST ST Vicinity Map - 108th AVENUE WALKWAY E Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointments of Ellen Gimenez, Greg Worthing, Walter Hazen and Carol Vass to serve as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Gimenez is a Kent resident and works for a local grocery chain. She is experienced in cake decorating and has won numerous competitions during the past 10 years. She is looking forward to working with the Commission. She will replace Robb Dreblow and her appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Mr. Worthing has been involved with the arts community in Kent since 1977 as an art teacher at Kent-Meridian High School and manager of the Performing Arts Center. He was an integral part of the team that created the very successful "Underworks" teen tile mural at Earthworks Park last summer. Mr. Worthing will be a valuable addition to the Commission. He will replace Shannon McMurry and his appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Mr. Hazen is an artist and gallery owner in Kent. He has participated in the Downtown Partnership, the Downtown Planning Board, the Regional Transit Authority Advisory Board and others. He will bring his art knowledge and experience to the Commission. He will replace Grace Hiranaka and his appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Ms. Vass has a degree in art from the University of Washington and worked for an art consultant firm for many years. She is a resident of Kent and has volunteered for numerous City arts projects. She will replace Jim Teeters and her appointment will continue to 10/31/99 . 3 . EXHIBITS: 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS* 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3W MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEM ERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAY DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1995 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently appointed Ellen Gimenez, Greg Worthing, Walter Hazen and Carol Vass to serve as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Gimenez is a Kent resident and works for a local grocery chain. She is experienced in cake decorating and has won numerous competitions during the past 10 years. She is looking forward to working with the Commission. She will replace Robb Dreblow and her appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Mr. Worthing has been involved with the arts community in Kent since 1977 as an art teacher at Kent- Meridian High School and manager of the Performing Arts Center. He was an integral part of the team that created the very successful "Underworks" teen tile mural at Earthworks Park last summer. Mr. Worthing will be a valuable addition to the Commission. He will replace Shannon McMurry and his appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Mr. Hazen is an artist and gallery owner in Kent. He has participated in the Downtown Partnership, the Downtown Planning Board ,the Regional Transit Authority Advisory Board and others. He will bring his art knowledge and experience to the Commission. He will replace Grace Hiranaka and his appointment will continue to 10/31/99. Ms. Vass has a degree in art from the University of Washington and worked for an art consultant firm for many years. She is a resident of Kent and has volunteered for numerous City arts projects. She will replace Jim Teeters and her appointment will continue to 10/31/99. I submit this for your confirmation. JW`Jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REAPPOINTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappoint- ment of Morgan Llewellyn to continue serving as a member of the Kent Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Llewellyn's new term will continue until 12/31/99. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3X MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYQU DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1995 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO KENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I have recently reappointed Morgan Llewellyn to continue serving as a member of the Kent Economic Development Corporation. Mr. Llewellyn's new term will continue until 12/31/99. I submit this for your confirmation. JW.jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MAYOR' S REAPPOINTMENTS TO HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION 2 . SIIMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappoint- ments of Mac D. Culver, Ph.D. , Dee Moschel, and Melvin Tate to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new appointments will continue to 1/1/99 . Confirmation of the Mayor's reappointment of Mary Lou Becvar to continue serving as the non-voting agency representative to the Commission. The non-voting agency representative is limited to one full term only. Ms. Becvar replaced a Commission member who resigned, she has only served a partial term. Her new appointment will continue as her first full term, until 1/1/98. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Ma or White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:_ NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Y MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL ME :) FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYO DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1995 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have recently reappointed Mac D. Culver, PhD, Dee Moschel and Melvin Tate to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new appointments will continue to I/l/99. I have also reappointed Mary Lou Becvar to continue serving as the non-voting agency representative to the Commission. The non-voting agency representative is limited to one full term only. Ms.Becvar replaced a Commission member who resigned,she has only served a partial term. Her new appointment will continue as her first full term,until 1/l/98. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S REAPPOINTMENT TO HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION 2 . summARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Council President' s reappointment to continue serving as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission as the non-voting Council representative. This is a one-year term and will continue to 1/1/97 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Council President 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3Z MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDE DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1995 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have recently reappointed myself to continue serving as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission as the non-voting Council representative. This is a one year term and will continue to I/l/97. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 1996 CITY ART PLAN BUDGET AND FIVE-YEAR PLAN 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of the 1996 City Art Plan Budget and 1996-2000 Five-Year Art Plan. In compliance with the general procedures of the City Art Program (Ordinance No. 2552) , an annual budget for all City Art Program projects shall be prepared and updated. Added to the budget is the five-year art plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: 1996 City Art Plan Budget and the 1996-2000 City Five-Year Art Plan 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Arts Commission City staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $105 600 in 1996 SOURCE OF FUNDS: City Art Program, Ordinance 2552 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3AA CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN PROJECTS 8 , 000 Reclamation Art Project 8 , 000 Canterbury Faire Crown Project 2G , 000 Banner Replacement Portable Collection Purchases 3 , 000 - Public Participation Art Project 30 , 000 Subtotal 62 , 000 OTHER EXPENSES 6 , 300 Maintenance 28 , 500 Administration 1 , 500 Supplies 5 , 400 Design Fee and Honorariums 1 , 900 Postage and Printing Subtotal 43 , 600 TOTAL $105, 600 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN Protect Title : Reclamation Art Project - Project Description : Continuation of the successful public art program that has area youth designing and producing artworks with a professional artist Ruth Tomlinson . Two projects are planned for 1996 . The project sites and overall desians (mural , installation, environmental work, etc . ) will be determined by the youth in cooperation with the artist and the Parks Department staff . Estimated 1996 Costs : $8 , 000 . 00 Fundina Source : City Art Plan Backaround: The first Reclamation_ Art Project was completed by students of Kent West Nigh School in the Winter of 1994 . The students painted the "Dig It" mural on the previously vandalized restrocm/maintenance building at West Fenwick Park . Following the success of that project , four more works were completed in 1995 throughout the City. The response from the youth and the community has been extremely positive . Factors Supporting Project : -. 1 . The project promotes the City' s interest in working with youth. 2 . Vandalism declines and money is saved in maintenance . CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN Project Title : Canterbury Faire Crown Prolect Description: Artist Helen Lessick has granted the Arts Commission the use of her "Crown" artwork for the Tenth Anniversary of the Kent Canterbury Faire . The Crown, which measures ten feet in height and twenty feet in diameter, will be installed on the roof of the entrance to the Kent Senior Center for the 1996 Canterbury Faire . If funding allows , the artist will develop, an informative brochure to coincide with the "Crown" installation. The brochure will highlight the different cultures in the Kent community and the crowns that each culture would traditionally use . The budget allows for installation and deinstallation of the work . Estimated 1996 Costs : $1 , 000 . 00 Fundina Source : City Art Plan Backaround : The "Crown" was installed on the roof at the Tacoma Art Museum in the summer of 1995 . Helen Lessick, the artist, offered the work for exhibition at the Tenth Annual Kent Canterbury Faire to both signify the special anniversary of the event and to extend her own research into the diverse communities in the Northwest . Factors Sunoortina Project : 1 . The project promotes the Canterbury Faire . 2 . The artist intends to research, and work with, a broad population of the Kent community. 3 . The project will incorporate public participation_ at the Faire . CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN Project Title : Banner Replacement at the Kent entrance sian Protect Description : The popular banners that hang above the Kent sign on Meeker street are in need of being replaced. The new banners will again be a colorful addition to the entrance and may possibly be similar to the original design . The ccsz also includes replacement of the kiosk covers at the Riverbend Golf Course, which were part of the original 1989 commission. Estimated 1996 Costs : $20 , 000 . 00 Funding Source : City Art Plan Backaround : The banners , along wit.- kiosk covers and flags for the Golf Course , were purchased in 1989 for $15 , 000 . The works have been repaired over the years but now need to be fully replaced. The original artist will have the opportunity to bid on the replacement . Factors Sun-porting Project : 1 . The original banners have worn out . 2 . The banners are an important welcoming element at Zne "gateway" into the City. CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN Protect Title : Portable Collection Purchases Proiect Descriution: Purchase high quality artworks from the Kent Canterbury Faire Juried Fine Art Exhibit . The artworks will be exhibited in the public accessible areas of the City of Kent buildings . Estimated 1996 Costs : $3 , 000 . 00 Funding Source : City Art Fund Backaround: The City of Kent Arts Commission has established a collection of portable artworks that includes paintings, prints and other works . The purchase awards at the Canterbury Faire Fine Art Exhibit brings a higher quality of artwork to the exhibit and allows the City to obtain artwork to enhance the public buildings . Factors Suznortina Project : 1 . Supports local artist and promotes participation in city programs . 2 . Visual artwork enhances public buildings . 3 . Artworks in public areas contribute to a successful and positive city image . CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 CITY ART PLAN Project Title : Public Participation Art Project Project Description: A professional artist would be hired to work with the public in the Lake Meridian area to conceptualize, design, create and install a community public artwork. The artwork will be placed in a park in the Lake Meridian area . What the work will be will be determined by the participating public and the artist . The artwork may be of the functional realm, i . e . , a tile covered bench or a tile path. The overall concept of the project is that the public would have a vested interest in the artwork and in an element in their community. Estimated 1996 Costs : $30 , 000 Funding Source : city Art Plan Backaround: Building on the Green River Trail -Public Participation Project of 1995 and the Reclamation Art Projects , the Arts Commission is interested in continuing to use public art as a vehicle for creating a "Sense of Place" within a community. Given Kent ' s rapidly growing and changing population, the Arts Commission feels that a community participation public art project could be an ideal element to have people feel connected to their City and community. Factors Sun-porting Project : 1 . The general public can participate in a public art project . 2 . Allows the public to personally conceptualize and build an element in their community. 3 . Participation in public events and projects can help in _ developing a sense of pride in community. CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 - 2000 CITY ART PLAN 1996 PROJECTS 8, 000 Reclamation Art Project 1, 000 Canterbury Faire Crown Project 20 , 000 Banner Replacement 3 , 000 Portable Collection Purchases 30, 000 Public Participation Art Project A3 . 600 Administration/Maintenance Subtotal 105 , 600 1997 COSTS PROJECTS Reclamation Art Project 12 , 000 Japanese-American recognition artwork 50, 000 Performing Arts Center design/planning 10 , 000 Portable Collection Purchases _ 3 , 000 Administration/Maintenance 45 , 000 APPROXIMATE YEAR TOTAL $120 , 000 1998 COSTS PROJECTS Reclamation Art Project 12 , 000 Performing Arts Center artwork 55, 000 Portable Collection Purchases 3 , 000 50 . 000 Administration/Maintenance APPROXIMATE YEAR TOTAL $120 , 000 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1996 - 2000 CITY ART PLAN 1999 COSTS PROJECTS 16, 000 Reclamation Art Project 50 , 000 Performing Art Center artwork 1 , 000 Portable Collection Purchases 50 , 00 Administration/Maintenance APPROXIMATE YEAR TOTAL $120 , 000 2000 COSTS PROJECTS 16 , 000 Reclamation Art Projects 16 , 000 Public Participation Project (wetlands) 0 , 000 Portable Collection Purchases 55 , 000 Administration/Maintenance APPROXIMATE YEAR TOTAL $125, 000 /P� Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SATURDAY MARKET ADVISORY BOARD 2 . SUM)WY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3 Z'12 repealing Chapter 2 . 54 of the Kent City Code entitled "Saturday Market Board. " The Saturday Market Board has requested that the Board be abolished and that the vendors be represented on the Kent Downtown Partnership Board, which is the organization that works with the Saturday Market vendors. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from the Kent Downtown Partnership and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3BB rM El November 15, 199 I� The Honorable Mavor White r C C Mavors Once c City of Kent {'�'G, L� 220 4th Ave S `J`rlC� 1J94 7WNTOWN Kent, WA 98032 'ARrN£RSHIP !vl r�r Kent `urday Market Dear Mayor White, 'c-,West Meeker�`202 o. Box 557 The Saturdav Market Advisory Board meet on October 30, 1995 and t. WA 98035-0557 J6-813-6976 had the final .meeting for the L95 season. The Advisory Board =reESIDENT asked me to write a letter asking you to disband the Kent Saturdav _harles Turner, CPA Market Advisory Board. The members feel that the function of the :ier&Associates E PRESIDENT Board in its current state is not necessary for the smooth operation of :0 Beavers the Kent Saturdav Market. Thev feel that it would be more efficient ;hildren's Bcokshoo to have vendor representation on the board of directors for Kent :RETARY Downtown Partners Cole hip. The Advisory Board was set up through -award D. Jones ordinance -2^^—.72. Please let me know if there is anv thing that we 'REASURER need to do to mak Moschel e this request possible. .)erty Owner =AST PRESIDENT Sincerely, /- -'-y Prouty Ruth Real Estate 3vgRD OF DIRECTORS - .4e1 Kle wen o ran, Kleweno & nson inda Johnson, - 'crnsonothy msworh Kent Downtowtt Partnersnil fD Itizen at Larder Curran y cc: Brent McFall certy Owner John Hodgson m Gimirez J's Sccrs Cards s Khc Bank ,it Stewar, - ,,vaR's JeWe!ers LTD I Satierstrom :y of Kent oby Selis ;ness Office Supply Strair, `3oe,-ry Cwner =d Wester„eid Inters,ate Eank cutive Director ca Jo^,nson 'urday Market Coordinator ORDINANCE NO. AN . ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Chapter .2 . 54 of the Kent City Code entitled "Saturday Market Board. " WHEREAS, the Kent Saturday Market Board was created to make reports and recommendations to the City Council and the Mayor concerning the operation of the Kent Saturday Market ; and WHEREAS, due to the management of the Kent Saturday Market by the Kent Downtown Partnership, the Board believes its function is no longer necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Kent Saturday Market ; and WHEREAS, the Kent Saturday Market Board believes that the vendors of the Kent Saturday Market will be adequately represented through the Kent Downtown Partnership Board; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Chapter 2 . 54 of the Kent City Code entitled "Saturday Market Board" is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2 . Severability. If any section, sentence , clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . Section 3 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 19, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET UTILITY REPEAL AND SUBSTITUTE UTILITY TAX 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set January 21 1996, as the date for a public hearing on the Street Utility Repeal and Substitute Utility Tax. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES I 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council. Agenda > Item No. 3CC t . r {} � r i 6 R .r+`yi". ,! SY, r4 '.•.s' s y i°ij 6l�y !+ ��+Yd 1' .i� ,YYy y ,i'„ A, #�,;" i i ry1 Aei>y }i W� tf���. ( r �k•{� jy Ii. Mp,� ,� � dd , . � � 4 k� o =, nl!r, , u a r4 s i A d ...... [� y � ! ynf�, 1f � •�I�y Y ) 4� t i Yu d FY1 �11 � is , t fRY _ 1 ,j 1 1, _ I I 4 q = f3. 1 =v, =.�C,. +}4 A li} 1 t f,n r YY 5 ��y�y�y 1Rn, a l ! f kfy e fiA� We dPo 9 3? 1,7 IYi (,.How =r kAs1 � ki}fA Skt+yG�j ayA"ftkx vR y , r L✓ _ .tA yr^A �1 yr«� �ry {vuthuuvr�l`reunona �uru�l YwY twwFB 1 1 YY try Y Z F o t l�fRr`$ ab}Y a {a 3 tY� i I,� - £! {ii'§ r RINI .. ,ma3A , H} 1,0 Y �> u� a, c► i�� J to Li C')a)")w:rd C-i}�'.��,•)�,1'4.''�� R.a ,;. Judy Woods President � . {{//''11 11 �r�ff''\A YAP ""fir �y�/�]j�'1�� t )A#k! R f 994 A a +.t 1.1 1�„1{n Johnson �fl r 4�`w/i 1 Jim Bennc.Jt Tj auIr�r� 4= t ;t} {Ghrssti Houser Leong. 0 rr p; �A ift HT i n $ A � X}R Fd � Yt�Ftl a i�q �y� 1995 �,� � ��1tR v� e A�� ,A 9 � R=N, Off c, s f th M tityYY�Cl Q i4 }f P= q 1pp(t 4 ,� 'f � � d 21 � }'•�>f`�� a�i��d 1� {,i174 ..: d A i r b}ff v! , i 1 Alsi.. 1h 1!r a x . y, 4 iS i It'v •: e r 3 }r FEy�lAS a A Ai =b�`.. 3} 3F1R , (�"c`i.4 A ° � its}${j t si '{' sV �O Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-95-1 AND INITIAL ZONING AZ-95-3 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council has held two public hearings on the proposed zoning for the Meridian annexation area, as required by state law. The first hearing was on October 17th and the second was on November 21st. On November 21st, the City Council closed the public hearing and directed the staff to review public testimony and prepare recommendations for changes, if any. Tonight's meeting will consider adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and initial zoning for the Meridian annexation area. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to the City Council dated November 21, 1995; October 17, 1995 memo to City Council and eight (8) letters attached; September 19, 1995 staff report to the Planning Commission; Planning Commission minutes of October 2, 1995; and two ordinances 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember V moves, Councilmember seconds � i 1. to adopt Ordinance No ' l for the Comprehensive Planf amendment #CPA-95-10 and �A x r v. . ��' ��"�� �' ,;... '� i 2 . to adopt Ordinance No - for the initial zoning for the ,t Meridian Annexation area #AZ-95-3 S DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda ;Item No. ��� CITY OF f� Jim White, Mayor CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM December 12, 1995 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE NOVEMBER 21 PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ- 95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS On November 21, 1995, the City Council conducted the second of two public hearings on #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3, Meridian Annexation Area comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. After hearing from several property owners and receiving written testimony, the hearing was closed, and the Council directed Planning Department staff to review and analyze the testimony, and then bring forth a recommendation for the Council's consideration at the December 12 City Council meeting. The first portion of this memorandum will summarize the issues that were raised at the November 21 public hearing, and include a staff analysis. There was an earlier memorandum, dated November 21 (attached), which analyzed the issues raised at the October 17 meeting, and in written correspondence which was received by the City Council prior to November 21. It should be noted that some of the testimony at the November 21 hearing was directed at issues that were also addressed at the October 17 hearing. For the most part, this testimony will not be reviewed again here, and the Council should refer to the earlier memorandum for analysis of these issues. The second portion of this memorandum will then summarize the changes staff is recommending to the Planning Commission's recommendations, based on the public testimony received at both City Council hearings, and will summarize the rationale for the recommended changes. All of these issues relate to the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan maps. The issues will be identified by specific map sites. The map attached to the memorandum shows those 1104111 AVE SO,_/KENT.1V,ASFIIACTO��>;0+' •S9�/"I'PLEPHOAE f 05i4"9-1S00I F>raR59 _— STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#A7-95-3 December 12, 1995 areas for which staff is recommending a change from the Planning Commission's recommendation. Area 1: 27614 156th Avenue SE (Casey). Issue: Should this parcel be changed from SF-1 and RA to SF-6 and 111-7.2? Discussion This parcel is located at the southeast end of the annexation area, at the northeast intersection of 156th Avenue SE and Highway 18. The property consists of approximately 18 acres, much of which (13 acres) is in the process of being acquired by the State of Washington for storm water treatment and wetland mitigation for improvements to Highway 18. The parcel is currently zoned Rl in King County, and designated as Greenbelt/Urban Separator in the King County Comprehensive Plan. The property owner is requesting R1-7.2 zoning for the n-arcel, whereas the Planning Commission is recommending RA. Currently, the entire area east of 156th Avenue SE and south of Kent-Kangley Road is zoned Rl, and proposed for RA. This general area is currently not served by a water or sewer provider, althoush it is within the planning area of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District and Water District 111. The existing zoning of RI reflects the County's policy of low density zoning along stream corridors. The property owner contends that the portion of property closest to Soos Creek is being purchased by the State, and that the area left for development (approximately 5 acres) is adjacent to 156th Avenue SE and not within the Soos Creek stream buffer area. Area 2: Properties along SE 276 Street east of 132nd Ave SE and west of 135th Ave SE (Kircher) Issue: Should this area be changed from R1-9.6 to RI-7.2? Discussion: This site includes a 1.788 acre property and an eleven lot subdivision located 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-l/#AZ-95-3 December 12, 1995 along SE 276th Street which is a cul de sac. Lots in this subdivision are between 10,000 and 13,000 square feet in area. The owners of the large property made a request that this area be considered for R1-7.2, Single Family Residential zoning based on its location near both commercial and higher density residential development. The site is bordered on the north by an existing apartment development which is being recommended for MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential zoning, and to the south and east by R1-7.2 zoning. The recommended comprehensive plan designation for the site is SF-6, which accommodates both the RI-9.6 and R1-7.2 zoning designations. The site was recommended for R1-9.6 zoning by the Planning Commission because this designation is consistent with the present King County zoning of R4. Since the area is surrounded by R1-7.2 and multifamily zoning, a change to R1-7.2 would be both compatible with neighboring land uses and zoning, as well as consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designation of SF-6. Area 3: 27842 132nd Avenue SE and 27854 132nd Avenue SE ( Fortunato) Issue: Should this area be zoned to accommodate six or eight dwelling units per acre (111-7.2 or R1-5.0 zoning, rather than the recommended 3 dwelling units per acre (R1-12 zoning). Discussion This area is currently zoned Rl, one unit per acre, by King County, due to its location with the Urban Stream Corridor. The SF-3 comprehensive plan recommendation and R1-12 zoning recommendations for this area allow for more development opportunities than present zoning, but also reflect the larger lot zoning recommended by the County. Although water and sewer are available by extension of existing lines to Mr. Fortunado's property, there is no basis for a revised recommendation at this time. Area 4: 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from R1-7.2 to a zoning designation that would allow commercial use? Discussion: 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#AZ-95-3 December 12, 1995 This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The property is currently zoned R6, 6 units per acre, in King County. There are some small scale commercial and office uses located at the corner of 116th/240th Street to the north, otherwise the prevailing development pattern is single-family residential. During consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council considered a proposal to change the land use designation along the west side of 116th Avenue SE south of 240th Street to commercial. The Council chose to keep this area designated for single family development. The proposed SF6 plan designation and R1-7.2 zoning are consistent with this earlier decision. The proposal is also consistent with the County's existing zoning as well as the land use pattern in the area. Area 5: Kent-Karl( Commercial (Farrell, Olin, et al) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the _ area of Kent-Kangley Road/154th Avenue SE? Discussion: This issue was previously discussed in the staff's report to the City Council dated 11-21-95. However, additional testimony was submitted by several - persons who appeared at the second public hearing. As mentioned in staff's previous memo, the residents in the area are split on the issue of rezoning additional lots for commercial. Several additional residents testified at +he November 21st hearing who did not want commercial rezoning, but wanted the area to remain residential. Staff feels that the proposal to designate additional parcels for commercial zoning is not "ripe" at this time. Without an integrated, site specific development plan involving all affected property owners, it could potentially create a situation where some commercial parcels could only be accessed from 154th Avenue SE, forcing traffic through a residential area. An integrated proposal which derived access from Kent-Kangley Road and minimized impacts to neighboring residential properties could be better evaluated through the plan - 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#AZ-95-3 December 12, 1995 amendment/rezoning application process at a later date. Therefore, staff recommends no change to the Planning Commission's recommendation, Area 6 : Southwest section of the annexation area. (Voss) - Issue: Concern that Rl- 20 zoning is not appropriate in this area - prefers zoning to restrict development to one dwelling per five acres. Discussion The Meridian Annexation area is within the urban growth boundary, and is an urban area in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA directs cities and counties to reduce residential sprawl and concentrate growth where facilities are more economically available. Areas within the growth boundaries cities must be zoned to accommodate urban densities. Although this area was previously zoned GR( Growth Reserve) by King County, and is presently zoned Urban Reserve, this rural-type zoning was intended to be temporary (with an expiration date of December 31, 1994) for undeveloped and partly developed lands. The County is presently recommending chances in Urban Reserve-zoned areas to higher densities, more appropriate for land located within the urban growth boundaries. Area 7 : 15224 SE 275th Street (Sturges). Issue: Should this parcel be changed from SF-3 and R1-12 to SF-6 and Rl- 7.2? Discussion: This site is part of a large area located to the south of Kent-Kangley Road arid west of 156th Avenue SE which is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in King County, and is being proposed for R6 zoning (six units per acre) by King County as part of the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study. The property owner is requesting equivalent zoning in Kent, which would be R1-7.2. 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#AZ-95-3 December 12, 1995 The general area between 152nd Avenue SE and 156th Avenue SE north of Highway 18 is currently developed as a low density single-family area;-and is currently not within the service area of any water or sewer provider, although it is within the planning area of the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District and Water District 111. There is currently a proposed annexation being circulated (Annexation P-342) to bring this area into the service area of Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. This general area has commercial development to the north, multi-family and medium density single-family development to the west, and very low density residential development to the south and east. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS As directed by the City Council on November 21, staff has analyzed all of the testimony presented at the two City Council hearings, including written testimony, and also reviewed earlier testimony taken by the Planning Commission. After review and analysis of the issues raised at the hearings, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for both a comprehensive plan amendment and initial zoning, with four revisions. This revisions are shown on the attached map, and described below. Area A: Change from SF-8 and R1-5.0 to Open Space and RA Rationale This parcel is located east of 128th Avenue SE, and is within a large area which is recommended for SF-8 and R1-5.0. Several property owners, in both oral and written testimony, have indicated that this parcel is owned by King County, and is used as a wetland/drainage facility. Based on this information, staff recommends changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to Open Space, and the zoning to RA, which would be consistent with how other sites within the annexation area which are publicly owned, such as the area around Clark Lake, have been designated. Area B: Change zoning from R1-9.6 to R1-7.2 Rationale This general area consists of several parcels located to the east of 132nd Avenue SE along SE 275th Street. This area is currently zoned R4 in King County, as is the area to the west of 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#AZ-95-3 Decemuer 12, 1995 132nd Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended R1-9.6 zoning for the area in order to be consistent with the present County zoning. One of the property owners in this area testified that the area abuts multifamily zoning to the north, and that the surrounding zoning to the east and south is R1-7.2. The property owner requested R1-7.2, which would be consistent with the zoning to the east of 132nd Avenue. Therefore, staff recommends that this zoning designation be revised to R1-7.2. It should be noted that it is not necessary to change th-, comprehensive plan designation of SF6 for this area, since the amended R1-7.2 zoning would be consistent with this plan designation. Area C: Change from SF-3 and SF-1 and R1-12 and RA to R1-7.2 Rationale This is a large area generally located north of SE 288th Street and Highway 18, and extending from just west of 144th Avenue SE to 156th Avenue SE. This entire area is designated as Urban Reserve in King County, and is proposed for R6 zoning as part of the County Soos Creek Urban Reserve study (the study refers to this area as Area 11). Several property owners in this area testified at the hearings and in writing that they support the County's recommended zoning density for this area, which in Kent would be R1-7.2. According to King County staff, the input they have received at public open houses and public hearings on the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study has also been favorable regarding the proposed R6 zoning. After consideration of the testimony and further research, staff recommends this revision to the Planning Commission's recommendation for several reasons. First, King County has engaged in a long process involving the zoning of this area, and has received support for the proposed zoning densities. There do not appear to be any significant environmental constraints in this area, such as major creek corridors or wetlands. Furthermore, all of this area is either presently served by water and sewer or is included within a proposed annexation to the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and staff has been told by representatives.of the water and sewer districts that this area will all be served within the 6-year capital improvements program timeline for the districts. Finally, this change will greatly enhance the City's ability to provide adequate zoning capacity to meet the estimated housing target range of 1,700 to 2,000 households for the Meridian area, particularly since the designations of several parcels currently zoned multi-family have been changed to either single-family or commercial. 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - #CPA-95-1/#AZ-95-3 December 12, 1995 Area D: Change from SF-1 and RA to SF-3 and R1-12 Rationale This area is located east of 156th Avenue SE and north of Highway 18. The area is currently zoned as R1 in King County, due to its proximity to Big Soos Creek. Most of the parcels in this area consist of several acres, although some parcels are approximately one-half acre in size. A property owner in this area has requested R1-7.2 zoning. This zoning would be a fairly substantial change from the current County zoning of R1, particularly since there are no existing or proposed water or sewer service in this area. However, these parcels are within the planning area of Soos Creek Water and Sewer District and Water District 111, and most of the parcels are deep enough where some development could occur while preserving setbacks from Big Soos Creek. Also, as mentioned, several of the existing parcels in the area are smaller than one acre, despite the R1 zoning. It is recommended that the designations in this area be revised to SF-3 and R1-12, thus providing some additional development opportunities as requested, but still preserving lower densities in proximities to the creek. Attached are ordinances for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and initial zoning for the Meridian area. The exhibits currently attached to the ordinances reflect the staff-recommended revisions to the Planning Commission's recommendations. At the December 12 meeting, should the City Council wish to adopt the ordinances but make changes to the recommendations, these changes will be reflected on the exhibits. Planning staff will be available at the December 12 meeting to answer questions about the recommended Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area, as well as the information presented in this memorandum and attachments. JPH/KON/tb:MERANCC.REC Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner 8 rot Z o � JfJ 1;5 G An 195: V u as w F ® P. n axn I S 3A ,.... O CO Z W o - J� w` LJMOW 11 .... FBI C'') c�U'��—�--�U/ c'�I .sue i• wYs.:�_. •... /O� 31 3Ad 41011 F�1 a 0 0 0 = a5 ]Atl Ml6Ff I+ oN a I 3s w a z r y IL V/ ww. I 1 ,s ;Atl HLOZI Ll 38 $dF Hy9I[ 1jj- T� F7 N i 1 fll li 0-4 A f ;_ 94 OW - e .zs. 04 MM 4 + r f I� 0-4V L= L IlL 00 C—�'��ros�y�ii=ni-/ GI r. zinuM nat •> st i I� N a O VLL_c 1�'� W F�'� F�1 _ ��Ir i�� I r--� �<_:�5 :'A•c` `�. � ?=� 0. Z O ✓�. z ,rIVL ------------------ a i � T� I C -' 1, i 36 5AV H.L9 i i v _ sip I S J as i\tl H.LFOS YI ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Meridian Annexation Area. WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act as Chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA), requiring jurisdictions throughout the State of Washington, to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (2), the GMA states that each Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the city upon adoption; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (2) each jurisdiction is required under the GMA to establish procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the City Council no more frequently than once a year; that all proposals shall be considered by the City Council concurrently so the cumulative - effect of the various proposals can be ascertained; and that the City may adopt amendments or revisions to the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1995 the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3237 establishing procedures for amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3241, relating to the annexation into the City of Kent of the area known as the Meridian Annexation Area, and that this area would become part of the City of Kent on January 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Kent Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations for the Meridian Annexation Area on the plan's Land Use Plan Map; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3241 the City's Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Meridian area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36.70A.120 the GMA requires that the City enact development regulations which are consistent with and implement its comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning map amendments for the Meridian area are consistent, the Kent City Council adopted Resolution No. 1445 on September 20, 1995, which declared an emergency to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment for the Meridian Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 25 and 26, 1995 to take public testimony on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan for the Meridian annexation area; and 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered various Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map alternatives and public testimony during its public hearings, and following its deliberations on October 3, 1995, made a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the recommendation of the Planning Commission: the first hearing was held on October 17, 1995 and the second hearing was held on November 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, at the November 21 hearing, the City Council heard additional. new public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council moved to close the public hearing and directed staff to consider the public testimony provided at the hearings, and bring forward a recommendation on initial zoning for the Council's consideration for the City Council meeting of December 12, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and adopted an amendment to the Land Use Plan Map in the Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Meridian Annexation Area, and that the amended land use designations for the Meridian area are illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and that on September 25, 1995 the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum 3 analyzed the comprehensive plan amendments later adopted by the City Council on December 12, 1995; NOW THEREFORE, Section 1. The Land Use Plan Map in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the area known as the Meridian annexation area is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. Section 2. The City Council finds that the amendment outlined in Exhibit A meets the criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment as outlined in Section 12.02.050 of the Kent City Code. Section 3. 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 ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force January 1, 1996, which is more than five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 `Y PUBLISHED day of 1995. 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 Citv of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 5 E rZ1 ►n W �J m T P 3E 3vb u1951 35 u1B51 V 94 w � 3s 3.a outst 0 w 5 SAY GSZ9 co N Ljas 3n wteni � f r � VS. \ Ww n x Wy a I s na .lnnl 1 N s 3na ulnnl o r 3nb .lent D ` 33 3Aa .leEl W O U �y O F b K t7 19 W TO CIL —J1 _J� I eulsEt CI" 35 inn H.KE ti s vvv` r ��z rFS co na.1cc J iI��Z\ L� �'�ud5 35 3AV HStZT rT— m 3B Bea.3pZl ice. ` a 6DUO �. N a a I 39 3ntl x�ell � o 39 ant HS9it f1 N 0 ^,mil 0 1 3s 3 b .yn11 -, n 35 3n� U �I -I � 3S 3A'� HS2iT inL n.p �i NI I as 3AV uisol U 35 3AV H.L801 _ rvl V L na ut BO'. u.l J (n 3` 3Ae x.LsoT �� .. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to zoning and land use, to implement initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area. WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3241, annexing into the City of Kent, the area known as the Meridian Annexation Area, as of January 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the annexation area is comprised of approximately 5.27 square miles, or 3,373 acres, and extends east from the existing city limits at 116th Avenue SE to Big Soos Creek, while the northern boundary is SE 240th Street and the southern boundary is SE 288th Street; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3241 the City's Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Meridian area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 25 and 26, 1995 to take public testimony on amendments to the zoning map for the Meridian annexation area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered various zoning alternatives and public testimony during its public hearings, and on October 3, 1995, recommended approval of a zoning alternative to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the recommendation of the Planning Commission: the first hearing was held on October 17, 1995 and the second hearing was held on November 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, at thesNovember 21 hearing, the City Council heard additional, new public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council moved to close the public hearing and directed staff to consider the public testimony provided at the hearings, and bring forward a recommendation on initial zoning for the Council's consideration for the City Council meeting of December 12, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and on December 12, 1995 adopted initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area, and that the initial zoning is illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and that on _ September 25, 1995 the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the initial zoning designations later adopted by the City Council on December 12. 1995; NOW THEREFORE, Section 1. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.09.055 and the laws of the State of Washington, the initial zoning for the area known as the Meridian annexation area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit A. 2 Section 2. 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 ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. r Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force January 1, 1996, which is more than five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 PUBLISHED day of 1995. 3 r 35 3Ab w19S1 I- 35 3Atl tl1951 � rn m a '"' ; 1., X x a PI C. F F F .1 ; is V.anzst b a S 3A°1 QYZSI i W �W � sss � s 9 y rL X X X X m�i to\ d 3ntl wi Btlt z-Ii IN INJU zk x X x m �' �V' S 3Ab IDbl 35 3ntl tllnnl - .. p m m m m R .F.3 .Fi ► X "' n� ly v, i � � ogaoF = = 88 U � �1 D 1� 1 Ab NII� e r7 M G m O G O 3S 3ntl b1Jnt Z ►mm Cmm. p0.p M1pp 1mp4 '�1 C p '9 O 0 �C\2 U. O 1.1 i zoo o � G m YV v \L C O R m Off" 'S 3Atl blaft �� iO Z Z LPa �j OO p mR`D WRm mmmmo7lmao XaW - d,,.iti ,y,yxx UU Ix Ni 53ntl InFt xxxccxx,z����c.�zo a I A c I r Nf 3Atl bl Uhl92, a U i o � 9 ;Ab 41121 3S 3AV H,LbZT ., ,A,.rozl r� 3Si AV H,L9TT yi 3s a 3F ;Ab b 11 1 O N �� ie-I a\b HZcTT ZI �I s 3ntl ul6Ji �s inn uism !- 35 3Atl H.L80[ �� ro,1 ni � [���I 3S 3:\V H150I -�F— - CITY OF !S CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mavor MEMORANDUM November 21, 1995 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS On October 17, 1995, the City Council conducted the first of two public hearings on #CPA- 95-1 and #AZ-95-3, Meridian Annexation Area comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. The second City Council hearing will be held on November 21. -- At the October 17 hearing, several property owners testified on•the•Planning Commission's recommended comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area. Also, several letters have been submitted to the City Council regarding these issues. Eight of these letters were part of the Council packet for the October 17 meeting, while other written exhibits were submitted both at the meeting and since the meeting. This memorandum will summarize the issues that have been raised to date, and include a staff analysis and recommendation. It should be noted that some of the testimony received at the October 17 meeting, and in written correspondence, supports the Planning Commission recommendation. This memorandum will only analyze those issues which either need to be further clarified, or where persons testified in support of an issue which was not consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. All of these issues relate to the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan maps. The issues will be identified by specific map sites. Area 1: 25840 135th Lane S.E., Lake Meridian Cabins (Lewis). Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Tri..P 111"'I . .-..-.i _ ......,_ Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (=''CPA-95-1 & nAZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 2 Discussion: Lake Meridian Cabins property is located at the northeast end of Lake Meridian. The property is developed with nineteen residences, including a house near the south and west property lines, and eighteen small cottages located near the north and west property lines. The King County Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the property is four to twelve dwelling units per acre. The County zoning designation is R-4 Residential (four dwelling units per acre). Four dwellings per acre is consistent Nvith County policy to base densities on land characteristics. Lands which contain or which are in close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the north shore of Lake Meridian and the Soos Creek Corridor, received a maximum density recommendation of four homes per acre. The Planning Commission recommendation is for the Lake Meridian Cabins is a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF-6 ( S ngle Family Residential, six units per acre) and a zoning designation of R1 9.6 (Single Family Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size. The zero lot line option is currently available under Kent Zoning Code regulations for a site area of five acres or larger. The - Kent Zoning Code does not contain provisions for 10 dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The general policy of the City is to avoid creating additional multifamily-zoned property unless the property in question is already developed with multifamily dwellings. Area 2: Properties at southwest corner of SE 240th Street and 120th Avenue SE (Morford, Sharp) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-6 and R1-7.2 to SF-8 and RI- 5.0? Discussion: The property owners own two parcels in this area which are currently zoned R6 in King County, a zoning designation which allows 6 units per acre with no minimum lot size. The property owners are asking for a Kent zoning designation of R1-5.0, reasoning that the proposed R1-7.2 zoning does not allow an overall density of 6 units per acre, since each lot must be at least 7,200 square feet and that density is currently not calculated in the city based on the overall size of the parcel. However, the Council is currently considering amendments to the single-family development standards which would allow smaller lot sizes and zoning densities to be calculated based on the overall size Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments ('CPA-95-1 &_ AZ-95- 1 November 21, 1995 Page 3 of the property. This proposed amendment, which is pan of the City's effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan, has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council4Planning Committee, and will be considered by the full Council on November 21. Area 3: Wetland/drainage parcel located east of 128th Avenue SE and north of Kent-Kanglev Road Issue: Should this area by designated as Open Space on the Comprehensive Plan and zoned RA instead of SF-8 and R1-5.0 (Webb) Discussion: This property lies just northwest of the Lake Meridian Plaza shopping center. The parcel is approximately 4.72 acres in size and is owned by King County. A wetland and drainage facility with associated streams covers the majority of the site. At the October 17, 1995 City Council public hearing, George Webb gave testimony requesting this property be designated as Open Space on the Comprehensive Plan and zoned RA, Residential Agricultural which has a one acre minimum lot size requirement. The RA zoning district is the least dense in the city. In the development of the Comprehensive Plan. all areas designated as Open Space are publicly owned. These areas include parks such as the Soos Creek Trail, areas around Clark Lake, and other City and County owned land. A Comprehensive Plan Designation of Open Space for this property would be consistent with this policy. RA zoning would be consistent with the zoning given to other Open Space designated property. Area 4: Shadv Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 278yo 1 2nd Avenue SE (Spencer) Issue: Should this area be changed from Neighborhood Community Commercial to General Commercial? Discussion: The Shady Park grocery is located at 2784S 152nd Avenue SE, at the northeast corner of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 280th Street. The site contains a grocery store and an auto repair use. The owner testified at the October 17 hearing that the grocery store has been in existence since 1920. and that the auto repair use Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (rCPA-95-1 & ``AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 4 has been operating since 1940. This being the case, both uses are likely, legal and nonconforming, since the site is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in ;ing County (one dwelling unit per 5 acres). The general area surrounding.the sae is zoned and developed as very low density single-family. The proposed NCC zoning will bring the grocery store into conformance. "=he property owner seeks GC zoning so that the existing auto repair use would also be conforming. GC is the most intensive, auto-oriented commercial zo:ung district in the city. The legal, non-conforming status of the auto repair use on the site will continue if the site is zoned NCC use upon annexation into the City, meaning that the uses may continue to operate on the site. Area 5: 12525 SE 248th Street (Koji) Issue: Should this propertv be zoned R1-7.2 instead of the recommended R1-9.6? Response: This site is located at 12525 SE 248th Street, just east of 124th Ave SE. It is proposed for a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF-6, single family residential with a six unit per acre maximum density, and R1-9.6 zoning. Staff received a letter on October 3, 1995 from Herbert Noji requesting a reconsideration of this property for R1-7.2 zoning, and also took testimony at the October 17, 1995-public hearing requesting the same. This site has a King County zoning designation of R4, residential with a four units per acre maximum density. The recommended R1-9.6 zoning designation - would allow approximately 4.5 units per acre which is consistent with previous zoning. It is also consistent with established developments in the vicinity of the property. It should be noted that the proposed SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation would allow a zoning of R1-7.2. Map Site 6: Kent-Kangley Commercial (Houston/Katai/Walton/Wilson) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning to "square off"' boundaries near Kent-Kangley Road/154th Ave SE? Discussion: The Planning Commission has recommended that existing King County commercial zoning be converted to City cormercial zoning (i.e.. CC - Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (4CPA-95-1 & 4AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 5 Community Commercial) in the Kent-Kangley Road/154th Ave SE area: no additional non-commercial land was added in this area. The area recommended by the Commission for commercial zoning may be accessed directly from Kent- Kangley Road. If one or,more residential lots to the south were rezoned to Commercial, it could potentially result in a situation where commercial uses could only be accessed from 164th Avenue SE, a residential street. In light of this possibility, the Planning Commission did not recommend designating additional parcels for commercial zoning. (It should also be noted that property owners in this area are split on the issue of commercial re-zoning. If all affected property owners were to concur, an application for plan amendment and rezone could be made in the future. At that time, the issue of access, as well as all other factors, could better be evaluated in light of their i Map Site 7: Northwest corner of the Kent Kangley and 124th Avenue SE intersection (Tom Sinkula). Issue: Request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to allow commercial use. Discussion Comprehensive Plan goals and policies recommend encouraging infill of new commercial development within existing commercially designated areas, rather than new areas. to maintain and enhance existing business districts_ to allow businesses to benefit from proximir., tc cnc anoth:,r, and avoid creating additional traffic congestion at intersections on busy arterials. Map Site 8: Northeast corner of 144th Avenue SE and SE 288th Street (Kirby, Forner) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-1 and RA to SF-6 and R1-7.2`' Discussion: These properties are located at the southeastern portion of the annexation area, at the northeastern corner of SE 288th Street and 144th Avenue SE. The property is zoned Urban Reserve, 1 dwelling unit per five acres. King County staff has proposed that this property be zoned R6 as part of the Soos Creels Urban Reserve study. The property owners are requesting a similar designation in Kent. which would be R1-7.2. Meridian Annexation .Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (41CPA-95-1 & #AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 6 The proposed zoning for the area north of these properties is R1-12. This recommendation was based on the idea of allowing higher densities than the current zoning designations in King County allow, while providing something of a transitional zoning designation between the R1-7.2 zoning south of SE. 272nd Street and the more rural areas along SE 288th Street. Also. these areas which are proposed for R1-12 are presently in the service areas of Water District I I I and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The properties in question were recently annexed into the Water District 111 service area. while the properties along the west side of 144th Avenue SE to the north of SE 288th Street presently are not. Therefore, a zoning density of greater than RA may be appropriate for these properties. Attached are ordinances for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and initial zoning for the Meridian area. The exhibits currently attached to the ordinances reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. .After the public hearing, should the City Council wish to adopt the ordinances but make changes to the Planning Commission's respective recommendations, these changes will be reflected on the exhibits. Planning staff will be available at the November 21 meeting to answer questions about the recommended Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area, as well as the information presented in this memorandum and attachments. KOH/mp:a:merccres.mem Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner CITY OF LrZL SV CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3-90 ) Jim White, Mayor MEMORANDUM October 17, 1995 -- TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3-- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Attached is the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning for the Meridian annexation area. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the plan and zoning for the Meridian area on September 25 and September 26, 1995, and made their recommendation on October 2, 1995 (see attached minutes). At the public hearings, the Planning Commission received testimony on and considered three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning map for the area. These alternatives are outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 19, which is attached. After considering the public testimony and asking questions of staff, the Planning Commission is recommending a Land Use Plan Map and zoning map which most closely resembles Alternative 3 in the staff report, which was the staff proposal. The changes made to Alternative 3 by the Planning Commission were minor, and involved two changes along 152nd Avenue SE (one from R1-12 to NCC, the other from R1-12 to R1-7.2), one change along Kent- Kangley Road from R1-7.2 to O, and one change along SE 124th Street from R1-9.6 to R1-7.2. The Planning Commission received a great deal of public testimony during the hearings, and this testimony was analyzed by staff in a memorandum dated October 2, 1995, which is attached. Several letters were received by the Planning Department between the Planning Commission hearing on September 26 and the Planning Comrission's deliberation on October 2. Because the public hearing was closed on September 26, the Planning Commission chose not to consider these letters during their deliberations. However, they directed staff to enter the letters into the record and forward them to the City Council. These letters are attached, and are summarized below: 210-t, - - ,,,; 9 ��.:1:1 - _ :AA'E.SO-. l F:J,S'C W;ASIILV GTOA otip}'_i$9�1 TFL::PI!O�F. i_..���?�t-i if 111 I rAA SJ Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 2 Letter 1: Letter from several parties, dated September 28, 1995 Comment: Request a zoning designation of RA for a wetland owned by King County near the intersection of 128th Avenue SE and SE 268th Street. The area is currently proposed to be zoned R1-5.0. Letter 2: Two letters from Frances Houston, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Expressed concern about proposed commercial zoning along SE 272nd Street, east of 152nd Avenue SE. Letter 3: Letter from Ed Katai, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 4: Letter from David Zehr, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 5: Letter from David and Amy Walton, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Request for CC zoning on 154th Avenue SE, south of SE 272nd Avenue.- Letter 6: Letter from Tom Siniula, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Request for commercial zoning at the intersection of 124th Avenue SE and Kent- Kangley Road. The area is currently proposed to be zoned.Rl-7.2. Letter 7: Letter from Kenneth Kirby, dated September 5, 1995 Comment: Request for R6 (R1-7.2) zoning near the intersection of 144th Avenue SE and SE 288th Street. This area is proposed to be designated RA. Letter 8: Letter from Cal and Betty Wilson, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 3 These letters should be considered as part of the public record, along with other testimony which will be received by the City Council duruig your hearings on the plan and zoning designations-for the Meridian area. By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. The first hearing is scheduled for October 17, 1995, and the second hearing is scheduled for November 21, 1995, since by State law the hearings must be at least 30 days apart. Planning Department staff will be available at the October 17 hearing to further explain the recommended plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area. JPH/cw:merancc.mem Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner � v ILZ� � Ln Ln04 ✓� Z w C\ nl \ x \ - ;sa� Q`iS, c, 3Ab utant M��\ IL 7 0 /L�! rs ^ til W :.l y ❑ ^ 'I J � ��U'I�f (V NI I v . .LO M CQ \ S iAtl Ali y n �./ 7-7 64 1�V� 1 1 L'LI�hI(�'2'-N � �, ^,I i ir' I[✓'�-- I_�'�`ii� ,—N I ii I I ^Iry is ,Ae 'all II 777,1771z is :( 'b Alnll /� -- �� z-I _ �) - L=�I Ln Ln C, co a = iL lAe x1951x LJ9r1 - o n195 F) t-�. v w O O o z is It.. cxzsl S 3A QAZS� _ co 2� \ u2` lei "I � L] � < � � r y awl � lJL/ S� �C2_.'✓_."7L I� I t-� O � � L Atl Nl.nt ,'1` ma nLanl r •..•• / � �/� = � ! •u] 6 � F < Y ��� �1 �.L� 7 it I �� :/_�'. `J �/f�' �lam, d C .\/t � \ � a N 0. �j �.Wn V1 ^\ � s ♦ :.. � 1 � ^'I i :1 ZU L\in a F E N C L is ;Atl Nlanrl �(y�yY 1I F ;s lAe Nlsslo �O r� u F� m o " = fD CO � 0u mF-. 1 (-`'/`�/Vf�//�''`_f^�/IfII � rJ S Atl xl L � �I � � � ✓ I .. Mf Sf = Intl NlL IM i 3S 3AV x.i3zT C / I _ ;s ;Atl NlOZI I 1 =� ��l✓f'�"'gI ��'-- _ {n�U(��I �—,• � � L) L!� ;r ,Ae NLII r—i' 47� GI NI ' III 1' / P is ,tl .1,11 O C'IJ it Y H.LSO1 . uU 3a' i � 1 aS 3AV x :oI L CITY OF ILS fT CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, flavor MEMORANDUM October 2, 1995 MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING -CPA-95-1 AND -AZ-95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS The following is a summary of concerns and questions which were raised at the public hearings on September 25 and September 26. The first pan of the memorandum summarizes issues which are of a general nature, and do not relate to specific sites. The second part of the memorandum considers issues relating to specific sites on the proposed zoning maps. For each of these issues, staff has prepared a response and recommendation for the Planning Commission's review during the Commission's deliberations on the Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments on October 2. It should be noted that several persons who spoke during the public hearings on September 25 and September 26 spoke in favor of the staff proposal. Staff has not responded to this testimony, since the rationale for the staff proposal is already included in the September 19 staff report to the Commission. This memorandum will respond to those issues which either need to be further clarified, or where persons testified in support of an issue which was not consistent with the staff proposal. A. GENERAL ISSUES Issue 1: Animals in Residential Zones - Will annexation to the-City of Kent effect residents ability to keep animals? Discussion: Many residents of the Meridian annexation area have expressed concern about the . City of Kent policies and regulations for keeping animals in residential zones. Kent's regulations are very basic compared to those of King County. The King County Zoning Code provides number limits and confinement standards for small and large animals related to property.size, standards for aviary and beehives, kennels, and .,. '-20 hi AYE.SO- /KENT.WASMNGTO\Oft0i'- "i/TELFPHONE COA1359-:300/FAX Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 2 catteries, and property line setback requirements for livestock buildings. It provides livestock density regulations, and provisions for livestock -farm management plans for pasture management, watering, wetland, and stream management, confinement area , and waste management. The only Kent zoning code reference to animals is Section 15.08.070 which states: "Animals (excluding household pets such as cats and dogs), especially horses, cows, sheep and goats, shall not be pe:-pitted in residential districts on lots smaller than twenty thousand square feet." Beyond the Zoning Code regulation,the Kent Municipal Code provides for regulation, of noise, and animal nuisances, such as failure to confine animals properly, vicious, animals, and contagious diseases. The City at this time does not plan to revise t - zoning code provisions for animals. In the future, and as population growth occurs, the City will respond as necessary to maintain compatibility between land uses, inci..ding the keeping of animals on residential property. Issue 2: Issue: Nonconforming Uses (Evans) Discussion: Mr. Evans was concerned about the status of Lake Meridian Village v hich is a condominium complex located in an area recommended for single family residential use. Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use in the recommended zone, however, because the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status, the Lake Meridian Village is a legal use.. The exception states: "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." Lake Meridian Village Nvas established prior to 1984, and therefore qualifies for the exemption.. Other Meridian residents and property owners have inquired about nonconformance provisions in the Kent Zoning Code. The following is a general comparison of the City of Kent and King County regulations: Nonconformance is provided for in the Kent zoning code in much the same manner as the King County zoning code with some significant differences, including the residential excention quoted above. In each code, the nonconformance provisions do not relieve a property owner from compliance with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Nor do the nonconformance provisions relieve a property owner from conformance with other provisions of the zoning code beyond the specific nonconformance being addressed in particular situation. Uses, structures, lots and signs which were lawfully established in Kent prior to June 20, 1973, or which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the King County Zoning Code and rendered nonconforming by annexation are considered legal but non-conforming to Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission '"CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 3 the present codes and standards. Uses, structures and site improvements which were not established in compliance with the zoning code use regulations and development standards in force at the time of establishment are not considered nonconforming, but are illegal and subject to code enforcement. In King County, nonconforming structures may be repaired or reconstructed if they are not expanded and the building permit for reconstruction or repair is submitted within twelve months of damage or destruction. In Kent, in the event of natural disasters which damage the nonconforming structure more than 50% of the market value,the structure may not be restored or reconstructed except according to specific criteria as approved by the Planning Director. King County regulations provide for re-establishment of a discontinued nonconforming use if the use is re-established within 12 months, but Kent regulations do not allow a non-conforming use to be resumed after six months of abandonment. Subject to certain conditions and criteria, expansions of nonconforming uses may be authorized in both King County and Kent by the conditional use permit process. For information regarding specific nonconforming uses or structures, the public should contact the Planning Department. v Issue 3: Sensitive Area Development Regulations Discussion: The City of Kent uses several tools to regulate development within environmenrallv sensitive areas. Section 15.08.220 thru 15.08.224 of the Kent Zoning Code is intended to ''regulate the location and density of development based on imown physical constraints, and to preserve or enhance water quality in the city's watercourses.". This section of the code provides regulations for development on steep slopes, lakes, minor and major creeks, and seismic hazard areas. The Kent Wetlands Management Code (Section 11.05 of the Kent City Code) is intended to "protect the public health, safety, and welfare by preserving, protecting, and restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other activities within them and wetland buffers so that nuisances or threats to safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded..." Finally, the Kent Shoreline piaster Program regulates development within 200 feet of the -_ shorelines of statewide significance (Lake Meridian, Green River). "The Shoreline Management Act (Ch.90.58 RCW) provides for the management and protection of the state's shoreline resources by planning for reasonable and appropriate uses." Using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), hazard areas, creeks, and wetlands have been mapped within the city limits. This includes topographic contour lines at five foot intervals. The City currently has information on creeks Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 9CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 4 and topography for most of the Meridian area. However, wetlands and hazard areas have not yet been delineated. The City is currently working with King County to acquire additional information on Meridian sensitive areas. The Kent Public Works Department will be working with their counterparts at the County to insure a smooth transition of standards between the two jurisdictions. The Water Quality division of the Public Works Department administers the City's wetland and stormwater regulations. The Planning Department monitors development in specified hazard areas, including lakes and creeks. B. MAPPING ISSUES Map Site 1: Kent Kangley Commercial (Widener/Ormiston/Huston/Burpee/Wilson) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kent Kangley Road/154th Avenue SE? Staff Recommendation: No change Discussion: Owners of two properties testified that they would like to change their proposed zoning from R1-12.0 to CC, Community Commercial. In addition, a suggestion was made to "square off' the revised commercial zoning bounce to include two other properties in the area; the owner of one of these parcels objected to the revised boundary. The existing King County zoning in this area is Urban Reserve, I DU per acre. (This area is being proposed by King County for rezoning to R6 - 6 DU per acre.) The proposed zoning by staff is R1-12.0 which allows approximately 3-3 1/2 units per acre. At this time,the only access to these properties is from the south via 154th Avenue SE which is through a residential area. Staff does net recommend converting single family zoned land to commercial in this area. Map Site 2: 25840 135th Lane SE, Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis). Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Staff Recommendation: Retain SF 6 Comprehensive Plan recommendation, and RI 9.6 zoning designation, as recommended by staff in Alternative 3. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-96-1 and E Z-96-3 Page 5 Discussion: Lake Meridian Cabins property is located at the northeast end of Lake Meridian. The property is developed with nineteen residences, including a house near the south an west property lines, and eighteen small cottages located near the north and west property lines. The King County Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the property is four to twelve dwelling units per acre. The County zoning designation is R-4 Residential (four dwelling units per acre). Four dwellings per acre is consistent with County policy to base densities on land characteristics. Lands w'r�c' contain or which are in close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the north shore of Lake Meridian and the Soos Creek Corridor, received a maxim= density recommendation of four homes uer acre. The City of Kent Alternative 3, the staff-recommended alternative for the Lake Meridian Cabins recommends a Comprehensive designation of SF 6 (Single FamilI m Residential; six units per acre) and a zoning designation of R1 9.6 (Single Family Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size. The zero lot line option is currently available under Ken:Zoning Code regulations for a site area of five acres or larger. The Kent Zoning Code does not contain provisions for 10 dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The general policy of the City is to avoid crea: ^- additional multifamily-zoned property unless the property in question is already developed with, multifamily dwellings. Considering the location of the Meridian Cabins property, adjacent to ule shores of Lake Meridian, within a large general area of Rl 9.6 recommended zoning; and �)nsiderng general City policies regarding `he creation of additional multifamily property, staff recommends retaining the staff-recommended Alte...at :e Comprenensive plan and zoning gesignations of six dwellings per acre and a Iovu Square ioCt m-Ei .,ii"',: :Ct Slze. Map Site 3: Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) Issue: Should this area be chanted from single family residential to commercial? Staff Recommendation: Remain single-family residential. Discussion: The Shady Park grocery is located at 27848 152nd Avenue SE, at the northeast comer of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 280th Street. The site contains a grocery store and an auto repair use. The owner testified at the September 26 hearing that the Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 'CPA-95-1 and IMAZ-95-3 Page 6 grocery store has been in existence since 1920, and that the auto repair use has been operating since 1940. This being the case, both uses are likely legal and nonconforming, since the site is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in King County (one dwelling unit per 5 acres). The general area surrounding the site is zoned and developed as very low density single-family. The legal, non-conforming status of the uses on the site will continue if the site is zoned for single-family use upon annexation into the City,meaning that the uses may continue to operate on the site. Designating the site as commercial would allow an expanded number of commercial uses on the site if the ownership were to change, and would create a commercial zoning designation in the middle of a low density single-family area. Furthermore, auto repair is not a permitted use in the NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) zone, meaning that making this use conforming would require a CC (Community Commercial) or GC (General Commercial) zoning designation. Map Site 4: 28040 1:52nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-3 and R1-12 to SF-6 and RI-7.2? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-3 and R1-12 Discussion: This property currently has a farm use with some retail sales also being undertaken. The property is zoned Urban Reserve, 1 dwelling unit per five acres. King County staff has proposed, as part of the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study. The owner is requesting a similar designation in Kent, which would be R1-7.2. The staff proposal shows this area designated as SF-3 and R1-12, respectively. This recommendation was based on the idea of allowing higher densities than the current zoning designations in King County allow, while providing something of a transitional zoning designation between the R1-7.2 zoning south of SE 272nd Street and the RA areas along SE 288th Street. Also, the analysis of household capacity and targets for the overall area shows that a density of R1-7.2 in this largely undeveloped area would not be necessary to meet the projected targets for the area. However, after additional research, it appears that the area could be served adequately with water and sewer facilities at an R1-7.2 zoning density, and there are, . no major environmental constraints in this general area. Therefore, staff would not oppose a designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 for this area if the Commission decides to make this chanae. .If the plan and zoning designations are amended, the boundaries of the amended area should be a larger area than just the property in question. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission -�� 4CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3' Page 7 Map Site 5: 26626132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the'staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow a nursery as a principally permitted use? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 Discussion; The owner of the property operates a nursery, which has been in existence for approximately 12 years. The site is currently zoned R6,Residential 6 units per acre. The nursery is apparently legal and nonconforming at the current time, and the proposed designation of RI-7.2 would preserve that status upon annexation into the City,meaning that the nursery could continue in operation. The zoning designations in the City which would allow a nursery as a permitted use are either agricultural zones (such as Al and RA) or commercial zones (such as NCC or CC), and these designations do not seem appropriate for this area,which is developed for the most part with single-family residential development. Map Site 6: 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) Issue: Should this property be designated for office use, instead of single- family residential? Staff Recommendation: Retain single family designation The owner gave testimony regarding his property located at 12633 SE 270th Street which covers approximately 16.5 acres of land. The owner requested professional office zoning due to his property's location adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road and environmental constraints on a large portion of the site. Staff has recommended R1-7.2 zoning for this property. A large wetland area and streams are located on most of the subject property. According to the owner, a small portion of the site adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road is higher than the rest of the property, and would make a suitable building site for offices. Staff has good information regarding streams, wetlands, and topography within the existing city limits, but detailed wetland information is not yet available in the Meridian area. Information that the City currently has does show streams on the property and shows a bench of higher elevation along the northeast portion of the site. However, field investigations, usually including a wetland delineation and mitigation plan, are required of all projects locating on a lot with wetlands, or impacting nearby wetlands. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 8 At this time, staff is recommending that the proposed R1-7.2 zoning be retained until that time additional information pertaining to wetland boundaries, type, and buffers can be provided and reviewed. Staff recognizes the limitations to developing a single family subdivision on the property, but does not feel extending Office zoning, with the negessary commercial Comprehensive Plan designation, would be desirable'along the entire frontage of this property. •If in the future it can be shown that a portion of the property is suitable for intense development, the owner will be able to apply for a Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendment based on this information. Map Site 7: Clark Lake (Lake, Mills Goldberg, Grajewski) Issue: Concern about the future of the property by King County for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake. Discussion: The Kent Comprehensive Plan,like.the King Comprehensive County Plan, assigns high priority to the acquisition and maintenance of both active and passive recreation sites. It provides for incorporation of unique ecological features and resources into the park system to protect wildlife habitat and preserve sensitive aquatic areas. The open space adjacent to Clark Lake was acquired as implementation of the King County Open Space Plan. The City of Kent plans to maintain the space as a passive park, in accordance with the original intent of the purchase. At this time,the Kent Parks Department does not have a specific plan for development of the park, but use of the open space will include picnic areas, Iake access, and trails. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan provides for increasing natural areas and open space linkages around Clark Lake and other open space areas, but there are no immediate plans to acquire additional property near Clark Lake. Map Site 8: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue: Should the designation of the property be revised to RJ-7.2 from R1-9.6? Staff Recommendation: Revise the recommended zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property within the R1 7.2 zone. Discussion A review of the King County Critical Areas maps and a site visit revealed no significant reason for the lower density designation on Mr. Kuehlthads property. The property is uneven and hilly and contains what appears to be an intermittent Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-95-1 and PrAZ-95-3 Page 9 drainage channel, but the Class 2 stream indicated on the sensitive areas maps is located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE, and crosses to the west side of 124th Avenue north of the Kuehlthau property. Since there are no significant environmental constraints, and the area in question is located adjacent to Rl 7.2-recommended property along the west and south property lines, staff recommends that the boundary line betweernthe Rl 9.6 and Rl 7.2 zones be revised as shown on the attached map. Map Site 9: East Side of 116th Avenue SE/S of SE 240.th Street (Richardson) Issue: Request that approximately 1.4 acres be rezoned to NMM to allow senior housing Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-7.2 -- Discussion: The property owner in this case requests that the proposed zoning for approximately 1.4 acres be changed from R1-7.2 to MRM,Medium density Multifamily to permit senior housinJretirement housing to be built_ The property is currently zoned R6 (6 DU per acre)in King County. The staff has proposed R1-7.2 zoning to be consistent with the existing County zoning. Also, this general area was the subject of much discussion during the review of the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the Ranniger parcel to the north was given a Neighborhood Services designation to acknowledge an existing business office,the remainder of the area was designated for single family residential. In addition, if the proposal is to construct retirement housing for senior citizens,this use is a conditional use in the Rl'zone and may be authorized by conditional use permit. A rezone to multifamily is not necessary. Therefore, staff does not recommend a change in proposed zoning. Map Site 10: Property located in southwest corner of annexation area (Pawlowski) Issue: Request to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-20 Discussion: The property owner-favors low density,single family residential zoning which would be consistent with the current Urban Reserve (1 DU per 5 acres) zoning of King Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 10 County. The proposed City zoning is R1-20 (1 DU per 1/2 acre). The City of Kent does not have a zoning classification equivalent to that of the County; the RA zone (1 unit per acre) is the least density residential zone in the City. The area where this parcel is located was proposed for R1-20 zoning because it is contiguous with the Ramstead annexation area Where the City recently applied R1-20 zoning:- . Map Site 11: 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 Discussion.• This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The property is currently zoned R6, Residential 6 - units per acre. There are some small scale commercial and office uses located at the corner of SE 240th and 116th Avenue SE; otherwise the prevalent development pattern in the area is single-family residential. During consideration of the Comprehensive Plan,the Planning Commission and City Council considered a proposal to change the land use designation along the west side of 116th Avenue SE south of SE 240th Street to commercial. The Council chose to keep this area designated for single-family development. The staff proposed land use. designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 is consistent with this earlier decision, is consistent with the existing County plan and zoning designations, and is consistent with the land use pattern of the area. Map Site 12: Multifamily Zoning of undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) .Issue: Request to retain existing County multifamily zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-5.0 Discussion: By letter dated 8-28-95, the property owner (Reid) of four parcels located adjacent -to the Lake Meridian Shopping Center at Kent Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE requests that these parcels retain multifamily zoning ently . The four parcels are curr -•-� Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 11 zoned R24 (24 units per acre)in King County,with a small portion of the site zoned R48 (48 units per acre). The staff proposed zoning map indicates R1-5.0, single family residential, 8 units per acre, with a portion of one parcel proposed for CC, Community Commercial zoning. The site is currently undeveloped. Portions of the site(east and northern sides) are low and not well drained. Cottonwood trees.cover much of the higher portions of the site. Access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Ave SE which intersects at an angle with Kent Kangley Road. One of the land use planning objectives for the Meridian annexation area, as expressed through City Council resolution#1420, is to retain and protect its single family residential character. Zoning this site for high density single family use (such as the proposed R1-5.0) should better protect such neighborhood character than high density multifamily zoning (such as R24 and R48). Staff will be prepared at the October 2 meeting to make presentations on the new issues analyzed, f— and answer questions from the Planning Commission on the issues previously discussed. If you have any questions prior to the meeting,please call Fred Satterstrom or Kevin ONeill at 859-3390. Attachment cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner tom. 1.5' 1 �! H o (�= �6 ~ A`, a P�7 ... V l O zr.1nr t S 3AY QN2S 1 V`J E H 3AY Nlitf X th Are. D r 0 = p 5 7' i 09 O X V S a �'. • N g V a e z e v c L \ V H ~+ oT ` s °duZ Q o. LL IEm -iC\2C)d triCO1� co* � LO z as CC ' ^as anv E1iZT ntl x1621 ( , a gig :z pF IN F X an t1 F y S 34Y .LZTT N U W d 0+ X 1+Yx+bot 3S 2AY H.L80T Y Ml y} 3S RAY Rl"T _ . . . . ...... PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 CITY OF �� CITY OF - _ CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM September 19, 1995 TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED SATTERSTROM,,PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3 Introduction In August 1995, the City Council approved the annexation of the area known as the Meridian Annexation into the City of Kent. This action by the City Council was the culmination of a long process undertaken by a group of citizens in the Lake Meridian area, and represents the largest annexation by petition ever completed in the State of Washington. The Meridian annexation area encompasses approximately 5.27 square miles (or 3,373 acres), and extends east from the existing city limits at 116th Avenue SE to Big Soos Creek. The northern boundary of the annexation area is SE 240th Street, while the southern boundary is SE 288th Street (see vicinity map). The annexation area encompasses the southeastern portion of the City's Potential Annexation Area, which is designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Meridian annexation area is scheduled to become part of the City of Kent on January 1, 1996. As part of the City's effort to have services in operation for the area by January 1, the City has undertaken a pre-annexation zoning process. In order to meet this timeline, public hearings on zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be held in September by the Planning Comrission. Following the Planning Commission hearings and a recommendation by the Commission, two hearings will be held by the City Council. By state Iaw, these hearings must be held 30 days apart from one another. Therefore, the first Council hearing will be in mid-October, while the second hearing will be in mid-November. The Council must adopt an ordinance by the end of November in order for the zoning to be in effect by January 1. The City of Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in April, 1995. As mentioned above, the plan included a potential annexation area (PAA) for the city. The plan also included a Land Use Plan Map in the Land Use Element, which designated land uses for the entire PAA. Therefore, the Land .Use Plan Map 1 - Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 includes land use designations for the Meridian annexation area. The GMA requires that all development regulations adopted by a jurisdiction must implement, and be consistent with, the comprehensive plan(RCW 36.70A.120). This means that the zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be consistent with the Land tse Plan Map in the comprehensive plan. While it is anticipated that the zoning being proposed (and ultimately adopted) for the area will be generally consistent with the Land Use Plan Map, it will be necessary to make some amendments, and also necessary to update the land use designations so that they are consistent with the designations for the rest of the City. Therefore, this project includes an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, as well as an amendment to the zoning map. Both the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments will be considered concurrently, since they must be consistent with one another. This report will outline background information on the Meridian annexation area, including a discussion of the existing King.County comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the area, and how they compare to Kent's respective plan and zoning designations. The report will then outline three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and the City's zoning map for the Planning Commission's consideration. It should be emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council will be asked to review and adopt both an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations for the annexation area. Background The comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area have changed twice in the past five years. In 1991, the King County Council adopted the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning, which encompassed'the entire Soos Creek Community Planning Area, and included the Meridian annexation area. The zoning which was adopted at the time of the Soos Creek Plan was distinguished by, among other things, the creation of growth reserve areas. These growth reserve areas, which allowed either 1 unit per 2.5 acres or 1 unit per 5 acres, were designed to phase growth throughout the area. Some of the growth reserve areas were assigned underlying densities, which became effective on December 31, 1994. In December, 1994, the County Council adopted the King County Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The County also 'adopted new zoning designations at the same time that the plan was adopted, and the new zoning went into effect in February, 1995. The new zoning was most notable for designating residential areas based on density, as opposed to uses. These current County zoning designations are described in greater detail later in the report. J, 2 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 When the County adopted their comprehensive plan, housing and employment targets were established for each community planning area and for the County as a whole, just as they were established for Kent in the City's comprehensive plan. The housing target for the portion of the Soos Creek area located within the urban growth area ranged from 8,600 to 9,600 households. The Meridian annexation area represents a significant portion of the urban land in the Soos Creek area. Staff has analyzed the Soos Creek household targets designated to each Small Analysis Zone (SAZ) by King County. It appears that the target for the Meridian area would fall within the range of 1,700 to 2,000 households in the next twenty years. Staff feels that more coordination needs to be done with King County and the other cities located in the Soos Creek area on distribution of targets. This is supported by LU-8 of the City's plan, which states: The City of Kent adopts a 20 year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area with Kent's Potential Annexation Area. This interlocal agreement has not yet been completed. It the interim, however, it appears that a target range of 1,700 to 2,000 new households in the Meridian annexation area is reasonable. It should be noted that ultimately a new housing target will be adopted by the city, to account for other recent annexations, and to be more consistent with the ranges listed in the Countywide Planning Policies. Staff has also analyzed the existing County zoning with regard to building capacity. Using data provided by the County for both vacant and underdeveloped land, it appears that adequate zoning capacity currently exists to support a target of 1,700 to 2,000 units. However, the "cushion" . shrinks substantially at the higher end of the range for existing zoning. Therefore, while all three zoning alternatives presented in the report would provide capacity to meet this interim target, Alternative 2 and 3 would provide more of a cushion to ensure that this target could be achieved. Existin; Land Uses The existing land use pattern in the Meridian Annexation Area is typical of most suburban neighborhoods. The predominate existing land use is detached single family residential. However, most uses, excluding those of an industrial nature, are represented. The most intense and dense land uses are clustered around two nodes on Kent-Kangley Road. The intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 132nd Ave SE includes two multi-tenant commercial centers with adjacent multifamily residential development. The largest multifamily complex in this area, 3 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 the Springwood apartments, contains 350 units in 41 separate structures_ The commercial uses include a supermarket, restaurants, pub and tavem, clothing stores, and other services. The area around the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 152nd.Ave SE includes existing commercial uses and single family,multifamily,and mobile home park housing. The Lake Meridian apartments contain 175 units, and the Cascade Villa Mobile Home Park has 130 units. The commercial uses in this area are smaller than,those at the node located at 132nd Ave SE and are of a personal service/retail nature. Numerous single family residential subdivisions are within the annexation area. Lot sizes in these subdivisions are similar to those within subdivisions inside the existing city limits with.a few exceptions. In some cases, subdivisions developed under county regulations, which allow lot averaging and clustering, may have lot sizes smaller than those in a city subdivision within a comparable zoning district. These subdivisions have been given credit for land set aside for open space tracts or public road dedication. The City is currently proposing similar single family residential development standards. The overall density in these areas is still held to a maximum underlying density established for each zoning district. Dispersed among the subdivisions are many large tracts of land. Several of these parcels are used for large farms including Iivestock grazing/exercisintr areas. Other large tracks of land are simply vacant or occupied by a single residence and accessory buildings. In many cases these large parcels are surrounded by developed single family subdivisions. These large vacant and underdeveloped parcels of land greatly contribute to what people perceive as rural character within this urban designated environment. There are several existing nonconforming uses located in the Meridian Annexation Area. These uses are mainly of a small retail and service variety. Several of these uses are located along Kent- Kangley Road and 144th Ave SE. Section 15.08.100 of the Kent Zoning Code outlines the Ciry's regulations pertaining to nonconforming development. This section provides protection to uses. structures, lots, or signs which have been lawfully established pursuant to'a county resolution in . effect at the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming. Generally, a use which was legal and/or legally established under the applicable county regulations,will continue to have a reasonable opportunity to continue its operations. This will be true regardless of what the new City zoning is. This protection is not offered to uses which were not lawfully established or expanded in King County. Other potential nonconforming uses at the time of annexation are Planned Unit Developments(PUD) previously located in single family zoning districts within the county. These developments, which 4 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan ._ Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 contain attached and multiple dwelling units,are currently not allowed in City's single family zoning districts, but are likely to continue with single family zoning upon annexation. Description of Existing King Countv Zoning i The existing King County zoning is predominantly residential. Within the annexation area; all properties north of Lake Meridian are classified R-4, or four dwelling units per acre. Most residential properties south of Lake ivleridian are classified R-6, or six dwelling units per acre. Areas of higher residential density are found adjacent to two commercial activity centers, Kent Highlands center,zoned Community Business (CB),and Lake Meridian center, zoned Neighborhood Business (NB); both are located adjacent to SE 272nd Street. Residential parcels adjacent to the Lake Meridian center are designated for 12, 24, and 48 units per acre. Residential areas adjacent to the Kent Highlands centers are zoned for densities of 18 and 24 units per acre. An area south and«est of the Kent Highlands center is designated R-4, or 4 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the annexation area contains five areas which are zoned Urban Reserve, one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Urban Reserve zoning is found in the following locations: (1) around CIark Lake, extending sown - to SE 256th Street, with a narrow extension to SE 259th Street; (2)INTorth of the Kent Highlands commercial activity center, extending from approximately SE 263rd Street south to approximately SE 268th, between 128th and 132nd Avenues SE; (3) between Kent Kangley Road and SE 272nd Street, from 118th Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE; (4) from SE 276th Street to SE 280th Street, between 104th Avenue SE and 120th Avenue SE; (5) between 141st to 156th Avenues SE, extending from approximately SE 275th,280th and 272nd Streets south to SE 288th Street and State Route 18. As mentioned in the background section of this report, the Urban Reserve zoning designation is a planning strategy which the County used in the 1991 Soos Creek Plan and Area Zoning, and throughout the County, to phase urban growth. The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) recommends lifting all Urban Reserve zoning because it is considered inconsistent the KCCP-recommended capital improvement strategy for phasing growth. Urban residential zoning is recommended, but not yet adopted in Soos Creek. The recommended densities for the Urban Reserves within the Meridian Annexation Area, in the same order as the location descriptions in the previous paragraph, areas follows: (1) R-^-.-P and R-6-P, four and six dwelling units per acre; (2)R-8-P, eight dwelling units per acre; (3)R-4-P, four dwelling units per acre; (4) R-4-P; four dwelling units per acre; (5) R-6-P, six dwelling units per acre. The County has cited several reasons for these proposed increased densities, including the fact that lands within the Urban Growth Area(UGA) are'required by the County Wide Planning Policies to be characterized by urban development, and the fact that most lands surrounding the Urban Reserve-zoned lands are zoned R4-P and R-6-P. In addition, urban level services are available to, or planned for, the Urban 5 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Reserve parcels. In some cases,however, the urban reserve areas contain environmentally sensiti v e lands which will not develop to maximum permitted densities. Com arison of King County and Kent Zoning Designations A list of existing County zoning designations assigned to the Meridian Annexation Area; and t . most closely corresponding City of Kent zoning designations is attached to this report (see Key:to Zoning Districts). Some characteristics of the Kent zoning alternatives proposed for the IvSeridi= Annexation Area are comparable to County zoning districts, and other characteristics are different. The King County Neighborhood Business (NB) and Community Business (CB) zones compare generally to the Kent Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (i�TCC) and Commis u y Commercial zones. The King County residential zones generally correspond to Kent Residential zones with the following differences: 1. Residential districts in Kent are separately distinguished as single family and multi- family zones. King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family and attached and "stacked" multifamily dwelling units. 2'. The maximum number of detached single family dwellings which may be developed on a parcel of land in Kent is determined by the overall area divided by a minimum lot size specified for each zone. The number of attached or stacked dwelling units which may be located on multi-family-zoned property is determined by the overall area divided by a minimum area allotted for each unit proposed. In each case, streets and utilities are subtracted from the overall gross area. In contrast: The King County zoning code bases the determination of the maximum number of axi dwelling units to be developed on a specific property on the Comprehensive Plan recommended density. Regardless of the amount of land required for streets and utilities, the maximum number of lots is permitted. No minimum lot size is specified. 3. The King County Zoning Code contains provisions for residential density bonuses, based on open space preservation or other public benefits. The Kent Zoning Code has no provisions for residential density bonuses. 4. The P suffix attached to designations such as R-4-P on the King County Maps whhich refer to the proposed zoning for the Growth Reserve areas, indicates a zonin6 overlay which provides for property-specific development standards to address individual properties or specifically defined geographic areas that are not adequately 6 r .. KEY TO ZONING DISTRICTS (Each zone is listed opposite the most similar zone in the other jurisdiction) �_Yity o� f Kent King County RA Residential Agricultural R-1 Urban Residential 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre R1-20 Single Family Residential NA 2 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-12 Single Family Residential NA 3 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-9.6 Single Family Residential R-4 Urban Residential 4 Dwelling Units per Acre 4 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-7.2_ Single Family Residential R-6 Urban Residential 6 Dwelling Units per Acre 6 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-5.0 Single Family Residential R-8 Urban Residential 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre 8 Dwelling Units per Acre `1D Duplex Multifamily Residential R-12 Urban Residential Approximately 10 Dwelling Units 12 Dwelling Units per Acre Per Acre MRG Garden Density Multifamily Residential R-18 Urban Residential 16 Dwelling Units per Acre 18 Dwelling Units per Acre MRVi Medium Density Multifamily Residential R-24 Urban Residential 23 Dwelling Units per Acre 24 Dwelling Units per Acre MRH High Density Multifamily Residential R-48 Urban Residential 40 Dwelling Units per Acre 48 Dwelling Units per Acre CC Community Commercial CB Community Business NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial NB Neighborhood Business O Professional and Office O Office NA UR Urban Reserve 02 Dwelling Units per Acre )r the purposes of this chart, "Dwelling Units" refers to principal dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units and cluster housing are not addressed in this definition chart. zd.cht Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 addressed by general minimum requirements. There is no similar overlay in the Kent Zoning Code. 5. Since Kent is an urban area,the Kent Zoning Code does not contain large lot zoning designations for natural resource lands, such as RA 5,Rural Area, one dwelling unit per 5 acres.. The Residential Agricultural or RA zone, one dwelling unit per acre, is the designation used in the Kent zoning alternatives to"assign the lowest available residential density. Environmental Characteristics The Meridian Annexation Area is located on Kent's East Hill (aka, Soos Creek) plateau and can be generally characterized as rolling terrain. Elevations are approximately between 400 and 600 feet above sea level. There are several significant environmental features in the area including Lake Meridian, Clark Lake, Soos Creek and its tributaries, wetlands, and significant trees and habitat areas. The Kent Zoning Code and other City regulations provide protection to and guide development in sensitive areas. Lake Meridian is a shoreline of statewide significance, and development within 200 feet of its ordinary high water mark and/or associated wetlands is governed by the Shoreline Management Act(Ch.90.58 RCW) and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. Staff has mapped hazard areas, wetlands, streams, and lakes within the city using its Geographic Information System(GIS). Some information pertaining to the Meridian area is currently available, but it is not as extensive as what is available within the existing city limits. The City is planning to update its database during the fall and winter to include all relevant topographical and environmental data. The City is also working with King County to exchange data where compatible. In some instances, King County and City of Kent development standards differ within sensitive areas. Buffers, setbacks, and impervious surface standards vary between jurisdictions. The City is discussing with the County appropriate measures for coordinating standards insuring a smooth transition between jurisdictions. Public Participation - Meridian Open House To get input on zoning issues from Meridian area residents, an Open House was held at Meridian Elementary School on August 24, 1995. Over 200 persons attended the open house and of these, 125 persons filled out survey questionnaires covering land use planning and related issues. Of those who filled out the questionnaire, the vast majority were long-term residents (> 10 years residency) who lived or owned property in the Meridian area. Survey respondants mentioned 7 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 "rural atmosphere" and "open space" as the two most important factors for living in the Meridian n of single family residential neighborhoods was the area. In terms of zoning issues, preservatio most important, with preservation of open space and the management of traffic congestion also receiving a high number of responses. Survey respondants were asked about their opinions of County zoning policy. Over 80% of respondants indicated dissatisfaction with County zoning. Follow�tp questions indicated that respondants felt County zoning allowed too much residential density and did not adequately protect neighborhoods. Four zoning alternatives were highlighted at the meeting and survey respondants were asked to identify their preference. Zoning Alternative 1 simply converted existing County zoning to the most comparable City zoning classification. In this alternative, existing urban reserve zoning was given a City zoning of RA (the lowest density City classification). Zoning Alternative 2 was similar to Alternative 1 except in the urban reserve areas. In these areas, residential zoning densities reflected the zoning recommendations which were proposed for each urban reserve area by King County staff. Zoning Alternative 3 retained existing zoning densities for much of the developed area of Meridian, but lowered the permitted density for many undeveloped properties. In this alternative, all undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a small lot, single family designation. Zoning Alternative 4 allowed higher densities than Alternative 3 particularly in single family areas. Also, existing undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a comparable City zoning classification. Based on the survey results, Zoning Alternative 1 was the preferred alternative (with 47 votes). Alternative 4 (with 20 votes) was the second most preferred alternative. Alternative 2 received 15 votes and Alternative 3 received 11. Ironically, while over 80% of survey respondants were dissatisfied with existing County zoning policy, over half of respondants preferred the alternative which was most like the existing County zoning pattern. Description of Zoning Alternatives As mentioned above, staff prepared four zoning alternatives for review at the August 24 open house. After reviewing the survey results, staff narrowed the number of alternatives to three for purpose of this report. The first two alternatives analyzed here were presented at the open house (numbered at that time as Alternative 1 and Alternative 4, respectively). Alternative 1 was included because if represents the existing zoning pattern in the area, and was the alternative which received the most votes in the survey. Alternative 4 (now labelled as Alternative 2) was included because it represented a clear distinction from Alternative 1, reflects much of what is g i i Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 currently being proposed for the urban reserve areas by King County staff, and was the alternative which received the second-highest number of votes in the survey. The third alternative was developed-to reflect some characteristics of all four alternatives which were prepared for the open house, and to attempt to respond to the r;sults of the survey. Maps for each zoning alternative are attached. Zoning Map - Alternative 1 Alternative 1 shows what the zoning in the Meridian annexation area would be if existing King County zoning was converted to the most comparable Kent zoning designations. .In this alternative, each parcel in the area is zoned based on the Kent zoning designation which most closely approximates the parcel's current King County zoning designation. For example, if a parcel is currently zoned R6 (6 dwelling units per acre), it is shown as•R1-7.2, which is the Kent zoning designation which allows roughly the same density. The exception is the area presently designated as Urban Reserve zoning in King County. These areas are currently zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the county. Kent does not have any zoning district which requires equivalent density. The zoning district in Kent with the lowest residential density is the RA (Residential Agriculture) district, which allows 1 dwelling unit per acre. Therefore, the existing Urban Reserve areas are designated RA in this alternative. Zoning Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would generally allow higher densities than would Alternative 1. For example, many of the areas currently zoned R4, and shown as R1-9.6 (single-family residential, 9,600 square foot minimum lot size) in the other two zoning alternatives, are shown as R1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). This in many cases reflects the fact that many of the existing lots in these areas are less than 9,600 square feet. The parcels which are currently zoned for multi-family residential uses are designated as multi-family in this alternative, although in some cases at lower densities than current King County zoning allows (as shown in Alternative 1). The urban reserve areas are for the most part zoned the same as is currently being proposed by King County staff as part of the Soos Creek urban reserve zoning study(typically either R1-9.6 or RI-7.2), while the areas presently zoned RI are shown as R1-9.6, which would allow higher densities (approximately 4.5 units per acre, as opposed to I unit per acre). 9 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Zoning Map -Alternative 3 The third altemative represents something of a midpoint between the first two alternatives in terms of residential densities. Some areas are designated for very low-density development, although not to the extent that is shown in Alternative 1. The proposed RA zoning is generally located near environmentally sensitive areas (Clark Lake and Big Soos Creek), and are distinguished by land owned by public entities (King County or the State of Washington). The area along SE 288th Street is designated RA due to the large number of existing agricultural uses in this general area: Otherwise, the urban reserve areas are designated for slightly higher densities, although in some cases not as much as is shown in Alternative 2. In terms of the commercial/multi-family nodes at 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road and at 152nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road, much of the existing multi-family-zoned land which is vacant or distinguished by some other use is zoned either commercial or high-density single-family. This is done in order to create a more consistent zoning pattern in these areas than presently exists, and to be consistent with the City's policies regarding multi-family development reflected in past actions (such as the 1989 Housing Study) and the Comprehensive Plan. Description of and Use Plan Map Alternatives There have been three land use plan map alternatives prepared, in conjunction with the three zoning alternatives. Each land use plan alternative is designed to be consistent with its accompanying zoning alternative (for example, Zoning Alternative 1 would implement Land Use Plan Alternative 1, etc.). None of the land use map alternatives represents a radical departure from the existing Land Use Plan Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The main difference between these proposed alternatives and the existing plan map is that the existing plan map uses the County's land use designations, based on the policy direction provided by the City Council at the time the plan was adopted. The proposed alternatives use the same land use designations as are used in the existing city limits. These designations go into slightly more detail in terms of residential densities than do the County's designations. However, the overall land use pattern represented in these alternatives does not differ substantially from either the City's or the County's existing plan. The three land use plan map alternatives have some things in common. In each, much of the developed single-family areas are designated SF-6, which could be implemented by either R1-9.6 or R1-7.2 zoning. Also, each alternative designates public facilities and publicly-owned open space areas. These areas will be zoned similarly to other properties, since the City does not have a "public" zoning district, so the zoning map will not reflect the location of public lands; however, the land use plan map will. 10 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan - Amendment and Initial Zoning, ##CPA-95-1 and ##AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 currently being proposed for the urban reserve areas by King County staff, and was the alternative which received the second-highest number of votes in the survey. The third alternative was developed to reflect some characteristics of all four alternatives which were prepared for the open house, and to attempt to respond to the results of the survey. Maps for each zoning alternative are attached. Zoning Map - Alternative 1 Alternative 1 shows what the zoning in the Meridian annexation area would be if existing King County zoning was converted to the most comparable Kent zoning designations. In this alternative, each parcel in the area is zoned based on the Kent zoning designation which most closely approximates the parcel's current King County zoning designation. For example, if a parcel is currently zoned R6 (6 dwelling units per acre), it is shown as R1-7.2, which is the Kent zoning designation which allows roughly the same density. The exception is the area presently designated as Urban Reserve zoning in King County. These areas are currently zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the county. .Kent does not have any zoning district which requires equivalent density. The zoning district in Kent with the lowest residential density is the RA (Residential Agriculture) district, which allows 1 dwelling unit per acre. Therefore, the existing Urban Reserve areas are designated RA in this alternative. Zoning Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would generally allow higher densities than would Alternative 1. For example, many of the areas currently zoned R4, and shown as R1-9.6 (single-family residential, 9,600 square foot minimum lot size) in the other two zoning alternatives, are shown as R1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). This in many cases reflects the fact that many of the existing lots in these areas are less than 9,600 square feet. The parcels which are currently zoned for multi-family residential uses are designated as multi-family in this alternative, although in some cases at lower densities than current King County zoning allows (as shown in Alternative 1). The urban reserve areas are for the most pan zoned the same as is currently being proposed by King County staffas part of the Soos Creek urban reserve zoning study(typically either R1-9.6 or R1-7.2), while the areas presently zoned RI are shown as R1-9.6, which would allow higher densities (approximately 4.5 units per acre, as opposed to 1 unit per acre). ,�1_ g Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Zoning Map -AIternative 3 The third alternative represents something of a midpoint between the first two alternatives in terms of residential densities. Some areas are designated for very low-density development, although not to the extent that is shown in Alternative 1. The proposed RA zoning is generally located near environmentally sensitive areas (Clark Lake and Big Soos Creek), and are distinguished by lane, owned by public entities (King County or the State of Washington). The area along SE 288th Street is. designated RA due to the large number of existing agricultural uses in this general area. Otherwise, the urban reserve areas are designated for slightly higher densities, although in some: cases not as much as is shown in Alternative 2. In terms of the commerciaUmulti-family nodes at 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road and at 152nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road:, much of the existing multi-family-zoned land which is vacant or distinguished by some other us is zoned either commercial or high-density single-family. This is done in order to create a motL consistent zoning pattern in these areas than presently exists, and to be consistent with the CitI policies regarding multi-family development reflected in past actions (such as the 1989 Housii:a Study) and the Comprehensive Plan. Description of Land Use Plan Map Alternatives There have been three land use plan map alternatives prepared, in conjunction with the three zoning alternatives. Each land use plan alternative is designed to be consistent with iu accompanying zoning alternative (for example, Zoning Alternative 1 would implement Land Use Plan Alternative 1, etc.). None of the land use map alternatives represents a radical departure from the existing Land Use Plan Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The main difference between these proposed alternatives and the existing plan map is that the existing plan map uses the County's land use designations, based on the policy direction provided by the City Council at the time the plan was adopted. The proposed alternatives use the same land use designations as are used in the existing city limits. These designations go into slightly more detail in terms of residential densities than do the County's designations. However, the overall land use pattern represented in these alternatives does not differ substantially from either the City's or the County's existing plan. The three land use plan map alternatives have some things in common. In each, much of the developed single-family areas are designated SF-6, which could be implemented by either R1-9.6 or R1-7.2 zoning. Also, each alternative designates public facilities and publicly-owned open space areas. These areas will be zoned similarly to other properties, since the City does not have a "public" zoning district, so the zoning map will not reflect the location of public lands; however; the land use plan map will. 10 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Maps for each alternative are attached. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 1 This alternative is generally consistent with the County's land use plan, although the land use designations in the City are different than they are in the County. Much of the area would be designated SF-1, which would be implemented by the RA zoning designations shown on Zoning -- Alternative 1. The developed single-family neighborhoods are designated SF-6, as they will be in all three plan alternatives. The land use designations around the commercial nodes are a mix of commercial and multi-family residential, as reflected in the existing King County plan and zoning map. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is most distinguished from Alternative 1 by the lack of property designated as SF-1. Almost every area distinguished by single-family residential development is designated as SF-6, 4 with the exception of two areas near the shopping center at 132nd and Kent-Kangley Road, which are designated as SF-8. Otherwise, this alternative is fairly similar to Alternative 1, with regard to the commercial and multi-family areas. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 3 Alternative 3 presents the widest variety of single-family residential densities, with areas being designated SF-1, SF-3, SF-6, and SF-8. This alternative also has less land designated for multi- family development than the other alternatives, while it has more land designated for commercial development, since it designates some existing multi-family land as commercial. Also, unlike the other alternatives, the existing mobile home parks are designated as mobile home park on the plan map, as opposed to multi-family residential. Analysis of Zoninzy and Land Use Plan Map Alternatives While Alternative 1 for both zoning and land use plan maps reflects the existing designations in King County, these existing policies are in a state of flux due to the policies in the King County Comprehensive Plan regarding the urban reserve areas. As stated previously, the County's plan calls for the elimination of urban reserve zoning, and this policy is currently being implemented in the County. The densities which are being recommended by County staff for the urban reserve areas, which are generally reflected in Alternative 2, are being guided by policies in the County's plan regarding densities in the urban growth area. Among these policies are the following: 11 fags 3A F < I r- j W U 5 v \(LD It N O U H O W yI1 U ` , I� 1 / m 01010. �tfle- 1 CJJI F t I�I� ;�I x ].e•tsa. F� / 35 3.\�' H180! — 3S 3.\v }LL'v0i I j 11 � c U U m 1 ] m m < ! l" 2 (i 7 lT yam) F• } } �Wy pcamGo3 c�ii `r �__��— fI - . 3Ay Hlszi L^ L�� �il" II ^I 3s •nv Hlytt -�I - � �--I� -.... 'I II i5 a a•�60,1• ' (—t_� r� � ���I II �'I :S ).a.t501 '3s 3dtl lu el I� 3S 31%`I 111s01 JIB► li � -� Z ► � v' 3.•ants: I O � �.., '—pS 3.\'i C`.�= y It Z ..y� i! Gp C 1+�1 ' Rx a my .aiz' s• F fi x a , ❑ I � W � OU �,.0pa3apUZ r, —��� _I W O �`O �LLU U -� _ 35 U. 1W 7 05 cn rrz ._.L c�z 9 �1 J ► � " � J •.� I ! /1 .i ;lam m 3s 3.1V Hl`21io TI— �J IJU✓ :3 \� ry� ��' If ]... .1ti ,-t! . -;- till 3S .\Y H191 FI� � y�L3 .. vjl C/ a I ]t . .JU1 . . .... x ]..asat FI 35 3AV H100[t2i vlt IF 3S 3AV I11101 II—�I e 4tSl F F f x � �S aA' 05Z5 W C C C FFes-�.. rT� .f. F Ln wim x Y F--I c W x x z �i oroxa�_ � °�J� �JI I r p q P N F '� U U il.'.I � J F G ❑ [i a > > � G J ��I�� � Z X z 6 Nx a o a It: w ail (i ~'aa 3.\V Hlizt UILID11 1I�ICI� as anv H1911 �% � i iL •1'i x at 3S 3.\V 13190I ry :call :A � � of L . i o F E''o c N a , _ ` og x ..G.z:�� O � � as 3A c:u. ^Z V,J U Z h+i z m m IJ I J I [] v co non a Cw ssl .. E, .D Q = a n VL oc1 v;minin. CO % wo O i '�I i �U ' I a RX Ell CV I 35 3AY HEFT r /�VU fi N-LJIJUV I��U �i` v U '• (� � it `Ll i. 3S AV H1911 A. M;� Y 1a l i ;S .Y.l]1{ yH ci i r_." "-s� HJ.Zii co �U ;s ne awl F 35 3AY H1SOi H TI F rn 3AV -- H E m Vt a, CD 1 ;, ,•e"ell Fi W 1p 1 F F F o F 1 i I� 3A Q\ZS. i s .. tltl1 1 O 1 1 1 1 a c ti tl ..- n ❑ o � K C �'J �y Is- .. � f O r O 1, U O o G= C Ml !A 111Z ►A Y A A 5 M Ytl t o n tl � � p� 9 C O S a o � � L-• /►� n C z L Y i ! b O 70 tly_ ; a+::c: S I �\1�i 1 [r T�1: r`� G am mmaa o1 10 C;1 "'t_f✓�/tLLv.t���llll�u!✓wJ l 1/q��� CD \� J�26,� � v�� �1_ o w 35 3AY H.L Zi III _ - J =2 m��: ��� .�� �► Ir=- ;lac. �� I�ii ice= is ... AyHLZ:I is "• � c 3: 3,\Y H180[ v. 35 3Av I(L•Of ( I1 1 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 King County shall seek to achieve through future planning efforts over the next twenty years, an average zoning density of at least seven to eight homes per acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of den§ities and housing types. A lower density zone-rrcy be used to recognize existing subdivisions with little or no opportunity for ini:':' f:r redevelopment. (Policy U-502, King County Comprehensive Plan) The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains policy language pertaining to residential patterns. The plan outlines the following general policy: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city n;c county housing targets with the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. (Policy LU-8.1) This policy, while encouraging single-family infill at urban densities, provides somewhat more flexibility in terms of plan densities throughout the City's PAA, particularly given that the plan contains areas for high density residential development in the downtown area and mixed use areas on the Valley Floor. In addition to the above policy, the City Council established policy guidelines for the Meridian annexation area prior to adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In January, 1995, the Council passed a resolution (Resolution No. 1420) which stated the following: It shall be the policy of the Kent City Council to retain the Meridian annexation area's predominantly single family residential character upon annexation into the City oi^Kent. As provided in the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area will be planned and zoned for predominantly single family residential use, except in the commercial nodes ar the intersections of Kent Kangley Road with 132nd Avenue SE and 152nd Avenue SE, together with existing or vested multifamily uses, all of which are currently indicated on the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation After review of these policies, as well as review of the survey results of the questionnaires collected at the August 24 open house, staff feels that Alternative 3 for both the land use plan map and zoning map should be the recommended alternative. 12 j Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Land Use Plan Map Alternative 3 as an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan:-, 2. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zoning Alternative 3 as an amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map, to go into effect on January 1, 1996. cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner 13 LETTER #1 - #AZ-95-3 September 28, 1995 #CPA-95-1 Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager RECEIVED City of Kent Planing Department 0 C Z 0 2 1995 . 220 S. Fourth Ave. Kent, Wa 98032 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Y _ Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Planning Commission Pubhc Hearing, September 25, 1995. Please accept the following input for incorporation by your staff and by the members of the Kent Planning Commission into the subject zoning: Our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Hearing. Specifically, we are concerned about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stormwat„er Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St and east of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Sons Creek 87". The southwest corner of the wedand as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stormwater storage and flood control. An earth dam or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stonnwater facility will be turned over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trails, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and maintained by the County with citizen involvment- The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Alternative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single family, 5,000 min. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. -_ We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the remaining Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should be one unit per acre. The zoning for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA (one unit per acre).. . The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Anncxation Aroa Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (Open Space)and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistent with other areas shown on Alternative 3 (Le; the Claris Lake area). We believe that preservation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwatet Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! - Eel y c t i O Ig ` :CisioZo -1 _ a ; 9s��3 / ALE; � � � 1 r r i cy J i,, 47R. gf�a31 7Y O� Q 1, Fl x_ Lr/nrr�c�L Sul jcct: Meridian Auncxation Arca Zoning-Maidian Mcadows wctiands - Scptcmbcr 28, 1995 SE �L U - 1 -17Nv C 09 D AUK. c;Zbr� /27 `- /�veS'� 1 , zLzc 3� IZ�r` V—)vP 5- � - S �aA G sic31 _l�e� w Ct 1 ri17i 'Jla(i3Q IZ7+ " ���'L1lt� `L • ��,�tCLt�v�'1 177t Aye S 28031 ��G3r5 Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows wetlands - September 28, 1995 C4 UyA r i 4� o W N .1 3 ' ;" 35 9nv On Zr1 I Ln Lij ` 3 I CIO >n � la£L 90 VZ6018I-060189 d5 7A LU [1 P t A- 01 HI LZI `CONTINUED) September 28, 1995 #AI-95-3 4CPA-95-1 Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager City of Kent Planning Department 220 S. Fourth Ave. Kent, Wa 98032 Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 25, 1995. Please accept the following input for incorporation by your staff and by the members of the Kent. Planning Commission into the subject zoning: Our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas.. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Hearing. Specifically, we are concerned about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stormwater Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St. and east of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Soon Creek 87". The southwest comer of the wetland as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stormwater storage and flood control. An earth dam or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stormwater facility will be tamed over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As-shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trans, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and mwntamed by the County with citizen irrvolvment. The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Alternative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single f Unify, 5,000 min. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan_ We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the remaining Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should he one unit per acre: The zoning for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA (one unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning -Meridian Meadows Wetlands - Scptcmbcr 28, 1995 (Open Space) and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistant with other areas shown on Alternative 3 (ie;the Clark Lake area). We believe that preservation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwater Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these. changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! pe, IL �r.� r,N \1 CJNG- Y U7- 6`fd� -2f xl2 1'F' Ri Goys%R. n" / �� 7-CA �r �`� Ut,9P— Pia rE IG r r�l E 6 r- Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Mmdows Wetlands - Sept=ber 28, 1995 U W wl 3 S-ZZ-Ir.M:; CH L J Q I `1' F - C I' �no 3 I b C IF n a F • � A C , /�' � I � V v V� •C -+ w� 11 > L � I'£19CY2601B ,060I89 dSEn }}} ° :3AV HL GiZI• r '..y_s',- ..� . 'c. . . ��� per F� N h _______ ___:— .. �� r-! .. _ u :.. .... - .. •• _I _. ter('•_ IL O 1 • • ,�..,,� •ter �'��� .. N .. .. .- - �` - -_ � �/, sI � 35 3nv H1 LZI .r LETTER #2 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 001 October 2, 1995 t_ City Of Kent Planning cp maission 220 4th Avenue S. S Kent, wA 98032 RE: meridian Annexation Area Zoning Houston Property (Tax Ac. 352205-9162-03) Dear Commission Members: The notice we received from the City of Kent regarding the initial zoning on my property showed it proposed for single family residential. At the September 26th public hearing I testified that I wished to retain my property in single family zoning. I have lived in this house for 18 years and in the immediate neighborhood for 48 years. I stated that my desire is to -continue to live on my property. At the September 26th meeting I also heard my neighbors stating that they want to be zoned commercial. Because of this I have done some further thinking about my property. If the zoning is adopted as proposed in Alternative 1 by the Planning Department, I continue in my desire to stay zoned as single family. But if the Planning Commission decides to zone the properties adjacent to me as commercial, then I would also want to be zoned commercial. It would no longer be desirable for me to continue to live on my property if I am surrounded on three sides by commercial zoning. Thank you for your consideration of my request. If you have questions please call me or my grandaughter, Roxanne, at 631-0873. Sincerely, Frances Houston 15304 S.E. 273rd Pl. Kent, WA 98042 cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Plann-ing Se*vices Manager Or' ' 0 2 1995 CITY •7F K=raT 212.n 4th Avr. R Keni,WA. 98U32 lJt�.tVl�1Gi i, i>i5 RE: Meridian Annexation Area Gonrnrt TT T FI` A S5210 l .l ..� riousion rroperiy lia7C tic. �II J� 25-9 i6�-UJ) T's r('r,mm:ccinn AffP.rnl wrc• llue to further intormation 1 rc;=vea this m== about my taxes 1 would AKe this letter suomtttcu wrtamy urst vitc. .,. A .,..i' t..+1,o'r-.. A f....e T 1.4 7.,....o•.• l:f..F .7•.......,...+ :C t"r uiu uv IULJ .a 4iu y lvi iy$.: L uiawuu. u my nrrnN-rt Zvac to on r`nmmxnial Ti,ic wrmlri ra:cr.my tpvp..cy fTrwn Og6R dq to$1771 F,1 That would be a increase of S 853.49. Being on a fixed income I'm afraid 1 would be rorced TD Se.U_ -LL yuG__ 1, . Cb, VOI -, • 11 yUu 13aVC Lilty C;[i.c''j 11U1L�pSGLi�C SCt ll� to l:ti-LL 111G Ul'llly KiZL11UUriUY11tGi�at VJ i-VO f J. Sinrrrwhr " �r'Ines Houston ,4'>AA Pr • 'Tb_a 1 JJVY J.L.. L fJSU Kent -WA. 083042 T� TT Tlt . .,. cc: James V. r1B=,rianrunP�DIrccior - V- a Q-. Trl..__:- i•ieli Jattciau��'- l-u�,lltl,l� .>civi�:ca ivi.aiissu`,ct - LETTER #3 9CPA-95-1 Mr, Y P—vky-\ klQl Ono W, GOwe- �Ce rkfi, wa . G3�' C\Y)O\ o\ , c a cry pas-c I _ ' I\CLVQ C� W nod �� Cl i� rS I./s P-4 t n ate 5 t t G� ea�f cf, ��cc co f +G .L c�e�r e,t e� YYLI s prc pe;; � Tbr-f Cer vnc r c i a l c c a,v�c� ! a�re c. lk nevCa kLc-n Ot p6ti t Di� f'L� Cc �j I Lu•✓W 1 s 1 VYi 6� I Kure V' r'lc) off tiv ay-e- L 0. Cc��nme cc 2s v�r Q� . W- �p n e vv�-k, c A 1 �A V v I {'(tit cc,1 l gvJ Foy a c ow�vim- (iw f'L�c s Cvne\r - RECEIVED tZ� a'` SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT - PLANNING DEPARTMENT LETTER #4 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 29 September 1995 Kent Planning Commission c/o Kent Planning Department i RE: Lake Meridian Area Annexation Dear Planning Commission Members: My name is David Zerr and I reside at 20619 Southeast 276th Street in Kent and own a commercial property, "Zerr's Feed" located' at 15323 Southeast 272nd Street in Kent. I'm writing to let you know that my wife and I are pleased that you are proposing to zone our property CC(community commercial) . Your're proposed zoning will allow a slightly more flexibility than the previous Neighborhood Business Zoning that was in place when we were in King County. It has come to my attention that several of my neighbors are proponents Of "up zoning" their properties to this same zoning that you are giving me. It is my opinion that this (timing) of your zoning of this area would be a good time to correct the irregular pattern of zoned property that existed under the county on this prime corner property(s) .Please take this fact into consideration as you deliberate your recommendations to the city council. Sincerely, /David L. Zerr . SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 v-e 2-- --- — s�YeS Ct rc ---- - ---Wf a r2 J � r� _ `4 lY< <..�c __....reS1G 2 k-Ic ------ .. .. . .... .. ... .. . �'- . ..---- ----- ---- - -- 0 C T o 2 1995 CITY OF KENT PLMN+NG DEPARTMENT 1 VL � 0 y T d Z 1025 CITY '-)P KTyT .. mitt.llf T(Pat Dlo a:an ('n�m.(o:nn �i\r.fva ..--nnl�.;_I'iT ??n dth Ave-. C Rent,WA. 99032 IJI:WUGt L, 177J - RE:Meridian Annexation Area LAmII_2, tT20llS10Il Y 1 .r rn..n ._ Properly f lax Ac. 'R J5LLvS-9162 TIP�r('nmmiacin4 T/Trm}wrc: Due to iurthes intommation i nweivea this morn,nv about my taxes t wowcl lire this Letter SUDI iitcu wi`inmy iii3i vuc. - atlas w w.. inn L'1KtiJ AJ vA uC�,i vrviuu uv ivu .:i l.�iiniuj ivi iuy S�uivc uiiwuul u my nmrwlty vac to on rraremrmial 'T'hi✓c�1vrnW7rj rayicr my t�nvPc fi-ruYl ��FiR dQ 2(1�1771 Fi5 That would be a increase oi M53.49. Beine on a fixed income 1n afiaid 1 would be forced io seii. It FULL L11VC Fifty IiUGJL1U11J�.11G2SJG 1GG1 llGG LU(:fill 111G Ul'Illy�t2111U.L1sU.L1lLG1'ZLL U>1-VO/.�. rrances rlous on t C7nA o r. n- A - I.?.)Ulf J.t:.. L l 31U lr + urP oROA17 ..- CC: James Y. haR1S,rianning LU=ior . t•tcu l7aLLctnuvtu,S ltuuutiu� l>ctvtL:ca tvtatus}Sct i !_ ,L'LR C� 4AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 SQ.Y1le r t' lCll�l'1E�� �QV fvv. 1 (y� EcA V-CC+-a i cv 1 1 awn a i� 2 '` {mil . evl 'V&Ctn, ye-ars cif a ts2�'d Je. S :E (vt� gecd "I z L s rc e; Cry a,,��c� Q w 0.l�ne.ncaa,e n b(,' C� C-f �Qbll)1C) • , Df LICL�t�ICS off !-�V- area y n e- 41cca 3O n,rlcj >, (o, 6U[ gvJ 6)--,( cvv\e\- _ RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT -b.'J.J ., .- .J..� 7r ry � u_Joy #CF'A--95-1 F OCT 2 - James Harris Tom Sinkula Planning Dept. 1928 So. 289th treetPLANNING OF Y.E!' r/F' City of Kent Federal Way, 220 4th Ave. So. Phone: 839-4394 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: 9-27-95 Dear James: I have been out of town and have been-i.=ble to attend the public meetings regarding the Meridian Annexation Areas 1 and `'"L For several years I have owned the vacant lot at the NW corner of Kent- Kangley and 124th Ave. SE. Attached is a map showing the property highlighted in yellow, and two pictures showing the property on 11-21-91. Even 4.years ago the lot was full of parked cars and was no longer adequate for residential use. Also enclosed are previous letters to King County dated 3-4-88, 1-17-91, and 9-4-91; all regarding requests and substantiation to upgrade the current zoning to a more realistic use. When the Dept. of Transportation widened SR516 to 4 lanes, they constructed a commercial road approach on my property. They assumed that business or commercial was the only use of the property. 1 agree with the Dept. of Transportation. Due to the high traffic count, noise, and air pollution, the property is no longer suitable for residential use. There are several businesses in the immediate area, including East Hill Radiator, Bergsma Realty, and Budz Home Heating. As outlined in the enclosed -letter to King Co. on 3-4-88, 1 feel that my property meets all the requirements for- BN zoning as required in the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Plateau Communities plan. The commercial services at 132nd Ave. SE are already overloaded. I feel that my property should be rezoned in order to provide a personal service facility that would meet the everyday needs of the neighborhood. Please sumort BN zoning for for my property. Sincerely, Tom Sinkula Tom Sinkula 1928 South 289th Federal Way, WA 98003 March 4, 1988 Sue Enger Project Manager King County Planning & Community Develorment 707 Smith Tower Bldg 506 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sue: I recently called regarding the update of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan and am now submitting my letter of request per your instructions. I own the property at' the NW quadrant of SR 51.6 (Kent-Kangley Road) and 124th Ave. S.E. and wish to petition the Planning Department to change the zoning to B-N, neighborhood business. .Following are several supporting reasons why this change would be in conformance with requirements of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan. 1.) Business centers should be located at the intersection of major transportation arteries. SR 516 is the highest volume East-West-corridor in the Socs Creek Plateau, while 124th Ave S.E. is a major arterial leading directly south to the Green River Community College. In the 1979 Soos Creek Plan, the traffic counts- shown on the Do Nothing Transportation System show this intersection to have the highest traffic count of any intersection East of the Benson 1^ Highway (SR �Z5) , even higher than SR 516 at 116th, 132nd, 164 a, or Wax Road. This intersection is centered in the area of the most rapid growth and will continue to be an important neighborhood focal point. 2.) For many years there have been many established businesses in the area from 116th Ave.S.E. to 132nd Ave.S.E. Some of these businesses are, Short Stop Market at 117th S.E. East Hill Radiator at 120th S.E. Bergsma Realty at 123rd S.E. Budz Home Heating at 124th S.E. Draeger Land & Homes at 128th S.E. Saddles & Equipment at 129th S.E. E-Z Eating Cafe at 130th S.E. -2- - March 4, 1988 Although this area is rapidly developing it is better to place the businesses at the major intersections first, with managed growth concepts applied to the areas between. The property I own is presently vacant land and would be the most suitable of the four corners on which to furnish neighborhood services. Budz Flame Heating is presently on the S.E. corner of 124th, but this property is much lower and would be more difficult to develop. 3.) As required by C1-42?, the following developments are already existing: a.Paved streets, sidewalks b.Storm drainage control, including curbs, gutters, and stormwater retention facilities c.Public water d.Sanitary sewers e.Controlled Traffic Access - There is an existing signal and left turn lanes at 124th Parking and Landscaping will be installed with the improvements. Also, there is an existing commercial road approach on SIR 516 and I have enclosed a copy of the permit from the Dept. Of Transportation. This was approved on 4-11-86. 4. ) According to the population density there should be more neighborhood services provided in this area. Currently to obtain services you would have to travel 12 miles to the West, 3 miles to the North, 1 mile to the East, and 3 miles to the South-. The added driving distance contributes to traffic congestion., environmental pollution, and wasting of our natural resources: C1-404 states that neighborhood centers should be located apprc Lmately one to three miles apart and serve a density of 8,000 to 15,000 persons. Neighborhood services at the intersection of 124th Ave.S.E. wc:._1d reduce the current traffic congestion at SR.516 and SA 515 (Benson Highway) which is currently operating at level of service E (over capacity) . 5.) The rapid development along the SR 516 corridor has increased the noise and air pollution considerably and this area is no longer suitable for residential use. 6. ) As required by C1-109, this land has a natural capacity for development and is free from- environmental cons saints involving floodplains, wetlands, steepslopes, landslides , coal mines, erosion, and aquifer recharge areas. -3- March 4, 19888 7•) The intersection of 124th Ave.S.E. and SR 516 adjoins the areas of highest growth as shown on page 185 of the 1979 Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan. 8.) This proposal meets all guidelines for Neighborhood Centers as listed under C1-401 thru Cl-422 in the King County Comprehensive Plan. Also, this proposal meets all guidelines for development of retail and commercial uses listed under paragraphs 1 through 9 on pages 12 and 13 of the existing Soos Creek Plateau area zoning plan. This proposal also is in compliance with the ex-isting County Policies listed on page 86 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan anc the Development Guidelines listed on pages 94 through 97 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan. I have _enclosed a proposed site plan and a copy of the permit for the commercial road approach on SR 516. In summary, I feel that my proposal is in compliance with all existing policies and request that the zoning be changed to Neighborhood Business. Please call me at the following numbers if there is any more information that you may require. Also, please add my name to your mailing list. 764 - 4108 days 839 - 4394 evenings Respectfully, Tom Sinkula N� {S1n1�, S it -�wPZN - -? S, ::! YVJtA . � o ;. j At `�43y7 V1� l � .n I � xy. a j 1�0 ':\ w,vZWyz �-�Y 4 AYz fi i 13Z0.01`1 ,f - - 7G-4 R1 1/74 - pact i, [Or your aid it, locating your land will, rcferenre to strrets and other psrrels. While the plat is hclic% to be rorrcrt, thr (:ompany a>atmes no hul,ility (ar any IusI, orrurriug by reasnn of refianee thereon:" SAFECO SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Tom Sink:ul a 1928 So . 289th Federal Way , WA 980i13 .Jan . 1 7 , 1 991 Sue Enger Project Manager 5i,o Second Ave . , Suite 707 Seattle , WA 98104 I was unable to attend your recent workshops so please accept my written commemts . Enclosed is my previous letter to you dated 3-4-68 , in which I listed several supporting reasons why my property at the NW quadrant of SR516 and 124th Ave . S .E . should be rezoned to a more compatible use . My supporting data met all the guidelines in the King County Comprehensive Plan , as well as those in the existing Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan . I had discussed my particular property with Ned Conroy on several occasions , .and when talking to Ned on both .4-26-90 and 10-30-89 he told me my property would be zoned professional off ice or multi-family . I ''feel my property still meets all the desireabl e qualifications for Neighborhood business and should be changed to that type of zoning . There are other businesses in the immediate area , and due to the noise and traffic my propertv 'is no longer desireable for residential use . Respectful 1 y , J OZh- Tom Sinkula Federal way .. Wi; c.*•: n .- y Pnone : S39 4 �s r•eauested by your 1 etter dated c%' c-•q1 , I ha.v_• the notariZ=d request form and a urra nt r.sSeE ED a,aQ snowing my property outlined in red . aas ,ius_ out to iooR: a� the property on 5'!3i9i ar:_ n.ere were tour cars parked on the lot with For Sale si_.nS Ln_C: . 7nis has been going on for several years .and Lr:c ioL l_ becciming unsightly and an eyesore . tract Lhi-� lot can be _ ! Edr:Bd U❑ and pU= to a _•ctt cr-' L', it is zoned 9i`1 and Rrovlda shcopin and ❑Br==nc =t�.r 1C= taCil hies to >erv=_ the Everyday needs G- 7z-ts r. iair,Ln rCi C•Gd . acher for y 'our use sre ,�,y pry o L is i =_tt e _ G= d h0w lr.,' In my March 4 , i?�u 1 �LLe 1 l is,.C'w . l iCabl e Uidel irfi- zme BN zoning met all the app _% Co,;_;nty GcTlpreher.sive Pia- and the 5•ocs :r-e2k F. tea_ Gm IT;L:r, _ �ies Flan . . Respec U Iom Sinkula. �1 •a . IJr �t r c 'C- n r .r..r-yam<i.�. 'T_.s�y •.�LT��"�U �,' .+ ` \'[ /�^•tom y�j�l i'�` yy�y. ff y�M. - — ♦ rf ..� r N �a J � �• � _•' ems. =,may L A _ rt i .F �h LETTER 7'17 vrAZ-95-3 44CPA-95-1 September 51 1995 Planning Department City of Kent 220 4th Avenue, South Kent , Washington 98032-5895 RE : MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA Dear Sir or Madam: Unfortunately , I was unable to attend your Open House on August 24 , 1995 . I should like to use this opportunity, therefore, as the tax- paying owner for 39 _years of a 9 . 43 acre tract in the Meridian Area, Ir 34-22-05 , to request that this area be zoned by -the City of Kent for Residential use , with 6 lots allotted per acre, as recently proposed by King County, Carol Lumb , Community Planner, King County Environmental Division . r I should greatly appreciate your serious consideration_ of this request. Thank you very much. Sincerely , Kenneth G . Kirby 1110 Wacon P7heel Rd Lawrence , KS 66049-3538 KGK :bak cc: Mayor Jim White RECEIVED S EP Z 8 1905 CITY OF KENT PLANNNG cE=AF7,ti;=FI T LETTER #8 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 27, 1995 Planning Commission City of Kent We, Cal and Betty Wilson, owners of the property on the SE corner and NW'corner of SE. 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington, are in the process`of building a new Chevron Gas Station and Convenience store on the SE Corner of 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington. Our original store and station opened in 1954. We resided at 15030 SE. 272nd Kent, Washington until 1980. We wish to express we are in full agreement with- the parties that expressed their desire to enlarge the CC - Community Commercial area in the Meridian Annexation Area Zoning Alternative 1 and squaring off the entire area. This would allow for a well planned retail area to benefit all, the property owners, the community and reduce traffic congestion. Zoning the entire area at this time seems only right. Zoning the area does not necessarily mean a person has to-move. We have known the entire Houston Family for 40 years. They have been our customers, our neighbors - they are our friends. We join the majority of the property owners in requesting this zoning. RECEIVED Sincerely, S EP 2 7 1995 MY OF KENT Cal & Betty Wilson FLSNNiNG CE:AF'i MENT PLANNING CONIiIIISSION MINUTES Jim White, iVIavor Public Hearing October 2, 1995 The continuation of the September 26 1995, meeting of the Kent Planning Commissiontivas called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:00 PM on October 2, 1995 in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Strinzham, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Janette Nuss Robert MacIsaac Mike Pattison PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier. excused Edward Heineman, Jr., excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O Neill, Senior Planner Brad Hazeltine, Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26 1995 MINUTES Commissioner Pattison MOVED and Commissioner Dahle SECONDED to accept the minutes for September 25 and 26 as written. Commissioner Nuss and Commissioner MacIsaac abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS NONE. COMMUNICATIONS NONE. I . - "U'th.AVF SO_ /FE?'T.:�'ASHI�GTON vxn;]-;qy� u TELE:IigCEci�9-�:00/FAR=CGo.:;L' Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director, Jim Hams, announced the Meridian Annexation Open Houses scheduled for Wednesday., November 15 at the Soos Cheek Fire Station and Thursday, November 16vat Martin Sortun Elementary from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Nuss announced that Mr. Chris Vance will be holding a meeting to discuss the proposed amendments for the King County Comprehensive Plan. The.meeting will be held at the Kentwood High School located at 25800 - 164th SE from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The public is encouraged to attend. MERIDIAN ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING (Deliberations) #CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 (Fred Satterstrom) Mr. Fred Satterstrom, City of Kent Planning Manager, outlined the staff report. The report is separated into two sections. Part one is an overview of general questions raised during public testimony. The second part addresses the individual "mapping" issues one by one. Mr. Satterstrom submitted eight letters to the Planning Commission for record. The letters were received by the Planning Department after the close of the public hearings. 1. Meridian Meadows Wetlands - Petition 2. Frances Houston dated October 2. 3. Mr. Ed Katai received September 29 4. Mr. David Zerr dated September 29 referring to Zerr's Feed. 5. Daniel and Amy Walton received October 2. 6. Tom Sinkula regarding property at Kent Kangley and 124th Ave SE. 7. Kenneth Kirby dated September 5 and received September 28. 8. Cal and Betty Wilson dated September 27. Most of these letters support the staff proposed Alternative 3. However, some of these letters do deal with new issues. Mr. Satterstrom offered two suggestions before the Planning Commission on how to deal with these"new" letters. The first altemative would be to continue the deliberations to a later date to analyze the new issues. Secondly, these individuals will,have two more opportunities for these issues to go before the City Council in open public hearing. The Planning Department will assure that these issues would be brought before the City Council Mr. Satterstrom reminded the public that the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. The 2 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 CPA-95-1 and RAZ-95-3 J Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Planning Commission will be analyzing the issues that came up during the public hearings. deliberating on those issues, and attempting to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed continuing the deliberations and making a recommendation without even considering the letters submitted by the public. Staff Presentation Ms. Linda Phillips,Planner, addressed the issue of animal regulations. The King County regulations cover a broad range of animal uses and businesses throughout the county. These regulations are complex. Kent's zoning regulations regarding animals are very basic. Kent's code says that if you live on a lot that is 20,000 square foot or more, you may keep animals other than household pets. There are,however, in the municipal codes, regulations that address animal nuisances, confinement of animals,vicious animals, and animal diseases. These codes allow complaints to be heard. At this point if there are problems with animals on a lot, the Planning Department hears the complaint, investigates, researches, and follows-up the same as any other code enforcement complaint. The City is not considering, changing the animal regulations at this time. However, as growth occurs, if there becomes a problem with compatibility between lots,there would likely be a review of the current animal regulations and some changes would be made. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the grandfathering issue that was discussed at the previous public hearing. Ms. Phillips reassured the Planning Commission that the City of Kent regulations are not as stringent as King County regulations. Therefore, the question of grandfathering would not arise. Keeping animals for a business use is not addressed in the City of Kent code and would be grandfathered as a non-conforming use. Chair Morrill questioned if Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Ms. Phillips confirmed that Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the City's involvement in neighbor complaints regarding animals. Ms.Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the City would investigate complaints from neighbors as regulated under the municipal codes. Commissioner Nuss asked for further clarification of the municipal codes regarding odors especially concerning dairy cows. Ms. Phillips explained that animal nuisance cases are judged on a case by case basis and what is appropriate for the situation. 3 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning iwao Amendments-Area? mCPA-95-1 and mAZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Ms. Phillips discussed issues regarding nonconforming uses. The Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use under the current recommended zone. However, the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status. The exception states "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1;-1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." According to this exception Lake Meridian Village is a legal use Chair Morrill questioned the status of the other two Lake Meridian Condominiums. Ms. Phillips explained to the Planning Commission that she did not have that information at this time but she would find out if they would also fall under this exception clause. Commissioner Stringham questioned if the City was planning to move the 1984 date forward to a more recent date. Ms. Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the Planning Department does not have a recommendation to change the date at this time. Ms. Phillips continued to explain the significant difference between King County's and Kent's nonconformance regulations. King County does allow nonconforming properties to be totally restored if the restoration is done within one year. Kent has a provision that if the nonconforming property is destroyed up to 50% of the value; it can not be restored except with special permission from the Planning Director. Commissioner Dahle asked for clarification regarding the time frame for restoration. Ms. Phillips explained that the time limit is based on the date the permit is applied for and there is no time limit for construction although the City would require reasonable progress. Mr. Satterstrom discussed the issues relating to sensitive area development regulations. The zoning code is set up to regulate the hazardous areas in the City, primarily the steep slope areas. The Wetlands regulations are administered by the Water Quality Section of the Public Works Department. The Wetland regulations of King County and Kent are very similar. The buffer areas are similar in certain circumstances and the definition of wetlands is similar. The primary difference between the County and the City regulations is the City uses the 1987 manual for wetland identification where the county uses the 1989 manual. The Shoreline Management Program regulates any development within 200 feet of a shoreline. Development within 200 feet of Lake Meridian would be regulated by the Shoreline Management Act. Commissioner MacIsaac asked if Clark Lake was included in the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that Clark Lake is not regulated under the Shoreline Management act because it is not 20 acres. The Shoreline Management act regulates natural bodies of water greater than 20 acres. 4 bleridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and 9AZ--95-3 Planning Co mmission Minutes October 2, 1995 Mapping Issues: Map Site 1• Kent KangIev Commercial (Widener/Ormiston/HoustonBumee/Wilson) Issue• Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kehi KanPely Road and 154th Avenue SE? Mr. Wilson and Mr. Widener requested the Planning Commission to consider zoning their properly community commercial. Neither property fronton Kent Kangley. Therefore, the staff recommends no change to the original proposed zoning. Commissioner Pattison requested Mr. Satterstrom to point out the cemetery next to the properties in question. Commissioner Stringham asked about the two letters from Ms. Houston that were entered into record. Mr. Harris clarified that Ms. Houston supports the staff proposed recommendation. As indicated in Ms. Houston's letter, she would only like to be considered for the commercial zoning if the properties surrounding her's are zoned commercial. Commissioner Dable asked if there would be a traffic problem with the cul-de-sac set up as a fire truck turn around if we zoned the properties commercial. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that there would be provisions for a turn around for a fire truck regardless of the zoning. Mr.Satterstrom indicated the problem would be access to the properties. At present they are accessed from SE 275th Place. Commissioner Stringham asked for what could the property owners do if they wanted commercial zoning later. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the property owners could get together and present a zoning request to the City based on the integration of the three or more parcels. The plan would need to internalize the access off of Kent Kangley. Man Site 2. 25840 115th Lane SE Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis) Issue• Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Ms. Phillips explained that the City code does not contain provisions for ten dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The City policy is to avoid creating additional multi-family zoned property, therefore, the staff recommends the original proposed zoning of R1-9.6. Map Site M37 Shadv Park Grocery and Auto Renair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) 5 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 RCPA-95-1 and RAZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Issue: Should this area be changed from single family residential to commercial? Kevin ONeiI1, Senior Planner, explained the staffs recommendation to stay with the crigiral proposed R1-7.2 density. The businesse9could continue as a legal and nonconformin :u,e. Chair Morrill questioned if the businesses could continue if they.burned down. Mr. %'_N;eill explained that if the property was destroyed beyond 50%,the new use would have to convert to the existing zoning. This is true of any legal nonconforming use under the City's current rer,a.t+_icas. Commissioner Stringham asked if this was also true of King County zoning. Mr. O'Neill sta e c -hat King County allows for reconstruction within 12 months of damage or destruction. Commissioner Dahle verified from Mr. ONeill that if the property is destroyed more that _09/c .hey can not rebuild. Map Site#4: 28040 152nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issuer Should this area be chanced from RI-12 to RI-7.2? Staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-12. The general zoning surrounding this properly is proposed for R1-7.2. Mr. ONeill explained the reasoning behind the staff recommendation;is 'Uhat this area.is still beyond the developed area. Mr. ONeill did explain that this property coulc_ be adequately served with water and sewer at a R1-7.2 density. i Commissioner Stringham clarified that if this property stayed with King County it would h::ve received zoning of six unit per acre (R1-72). Mr. O'Neill explained that King County sta< 1 ^s proposed six units per acre for that property, however, it has not been approved by the King CcunIz Council at this time. Map Site 5: 26626 132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zonnn, designation which would allow a nursery as a principally permitted use. The only zoning that would accommodate the owners request would be either agriculture or commercial zoning. The staff is again recommending the original proposal of Ri-7.2. The nurse: would be able to continue as a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Stringham clarified the location of the property. 6 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area Z 9CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Map Site 6: 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) - Issue• Should this roperty be designated for office use instead of single-family residential? This is a large parcel currently zoned urban reserve. The proposed zoning in the staff report is R1- 7.2. The owner has proposed an office zoning for the frontage of the property. The staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-7.2. Commissioner MacIsaac asked for clarification of use of some adjacent property. Mr. O'Neill pointed out the residential uses" now located between the Conti property and the proposed commercial zone. Map Site 97• Clark Lake (Lake. Mills-Goldberg. Grajewski) Issue: Concern about the future of the propertv'bought by King Countv for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake. Ms. Phillips explained that this property will be managed by the City of Kent. At this time the City does not have any plans to acquire any more property there. The Kent Comprehensive Plan has a strong recommendation for establishing linkages and increasing natural areas. The Kent Comprehensive Plan does have goals and policies for protecting ecologically sensitive areas. The Parks Department will be the managing department for this property. The Parks Department does not have a specific plan in mind in now,but they believe it will be used similar to what King County had planned(passive use -picnic tables, lake access, and trails). . Chair Morrill commented that the City of Kent's Park Department's is very good in taking into consideration the wishes of the people in the area. Map Site 4: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue• Should the designation of the property be revised to R1-7.2 from R1-9.6? The staff recommends a change in the zoning boundary to incorporate his property in the R1-7.2 zoning. Map Site 9• East Side of 116th Avenue SE/South of SE 240th Street (Richardson) Issue• Request that approximately 1 4 acres be rezoned to MRM to allow senior housing. 7 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area ) CPA-95-1 and AZ-93-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 The owner of this property requests a consideration for MRM zoning to permit senior housing. The staff pointed out at the previous public hearing that a retirement home is a conditional use in any residential zoning districts in the City. A rezone to-multifamily is not necessary. Commissioner Stringham asked for a definition of retirement housing. Mr. Satterstrom explained that as long as you were providing a living environment for senior residents it would be considered senior housing. Commissioner Stringham interpreted the zoning code to include on-site care in order to go in as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Stringham asked for a clarification of this. Nlr. Satterstrom stated that the staff would further clarify this issue. Man Site 10 Property located in the southwest comer of annexation area (Pawlowski) Issue• Reauest to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning. The owner requested zoning classification equivalent to that of the current King County zoning. The staff recommended the original proposed zoning of R1-20. Map Site 11. 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue• Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses. This property is located on 116th Avenue SE; across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The land use pattern in the area is predominately single family. The staff recommends the properties to stay with the original zoning of R1-7.2. Mat) Site 12• Multi family zoning for an undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) Issue- Request to retain existing County multi-family zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Mr. Satterstrom explained there appears to be some developmental limitations on the property. The access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Avenue SE. The resolution that was passed by the City Council said to protect the single family area. The staff recommended the originally proposed zoning of R1-5.0 and some community commercial zoning. Commissioner Stringham asked what is the current King County zoning. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the current zoning is R24 which is equivalent to the MP-Mi zoning. 8 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 nCPA-95-1 and KAZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Epperly addressed the Keary property that was not mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom clarified to the Planning Commission that the property owners that supported the staff proposed alternative 3 were not addressed in the October 2 staff report. Deliberations Chair Morrill stated that he would like to make the letters submitted earlier by the staff a party of record,however,not consider the letters as part of the deliberations. The letters would be sent to the City Council with an explanation that they were received after the Planning Commission had closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed sending the letters forward. Commissioner Nuss felt the . letters were important to the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planning Commission should take the time to review these letters. Commissioner Nuss does not believe the Planning Commission should pass the "buck." Commissioner Nuss urged the Planning Commission to wait until after the letters can be considered before making a recommendation to the City Council so as not to "inconvenience" the public. Commissioner Pattison explained that the Planning Commission operate under clearly defined rules and therefore, should stick to those rules and accept the letters as part of the record but not delay the deliberations because of their tardiness in essence. Commissioner Dahle reminded the Commission that there were individuals who requested to speak tonight. Since the Commission closed the public hearing and wont allow the public to speak. Commissioner Dahle does not believe the letters should be allowed or considered. Dahle agrees that the letters should be a part the of record. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that there are two more public hearings that will occur before the City Council. The public will have those opportunities to make their wishes known. Commissioner Stringliam agreed that the process has to be cut off at some point. Commissioner Nuss agrees that the process should be adhered to. Nuss does not think the hearing should be continually reopened, however, the public was aware that the deliberations were tonight and the letters were sent before this meeting. Commissioner Nuss believes that any letters received up to this point should be taken into consideration. Nuss feels the Planning Commission should be more caring and concerned with the people. 9 Xferidian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Mcgv Amendments-Area 2 'CPA-95-1 and k4Z-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED that the Planning Commission accept the eight letters that were received after the public hearing was closed and made a part of public record. Since the,Platming Commission did not have time'to take these letters into consideration, these letters,should be forwarded to the-City Council to be reviewed by staff and a recommendation given to the council. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac AMENDED the motion to specifically mention the Kenneth G. Kirby letter dated September 5,'1995. Commissioner Dahle accepted the amendment. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner Nuss against the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if staff considered the need for more commercial nodes. Planning Director, James Harris, explained that this is not the opportunity to review a general Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 1 (Widener/Ormiston/HoustonBurpee/Wilson) Kent Kangley commercial. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that if King County had zoned the area commercial he would of opposed the down zoning of these properties_ Chair Morrill agrees with Commissioner Stringham. Chair Morrill continued that if Wilson, Widener, and Ormiston went as one unit thev probably would not have any problems getting a zoning change. Commissioner Maclsaac pointed out that because of the current access commercial does not make since, therefore, he feels that the Planning Commission should consider Ms. Houston's wishes to remain single family zoning. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 2,the Lake Meridian Cabins. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner Maclsaac OPPOSED. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for no change on map site 3; Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that this business has been in existence a long time and the owner would lose the business in the event that it burns down. Commissioner Stringham questioned the possibility of neighborhood community commercial_ Commissioner Epperly mentioned that she had the same question. Senior Planner,Kevin O Neill, informed the Planning Commission that there is a possibility of NCC. The Comprehensive Plan land use map would have to be changed to commercial in order to accommodate the NCC zoning. The NCC designation would accommodate the grocery store, 1p Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 RCPA-95-1 and K.4Z-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 however, it would not accommodate the auto repair. Auto repair is not a permitted use in NCC zoning designation. The auto repair would continue to be legal and nonconforming in NCC. The only designation that would accommodate both the grocery store and the auto repair would be general commercial. Commissioner Stringham asked for clarification that under NCC zoning one of the businesses would be legal and conformipg and the other would still be legal and nonconforming. The owner would be 50% better off with the NCC zoning. Mr. ONeill agreed. Commissioner Dahle voiced her disapproval with the NCC zoning. Commissioner Stringham emphasized the possibility of his business burning down and with the residential zoning the owner could not rebuild. Commissioner Epperly voiced her concern with taking away a livelihood_ The motion to approve the staff recommendation FAILED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dahle. Nuss, and Pattison. Nay - Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and MacIsaac. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Shady Grocery parcel NCC zoning. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the motion would include making the Comprehensive Plan designation commercial. Commissioner Stringham accepted the clarification. The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and iviacIsaac. Nay - Commissioners Dahle,Nuss, and Pattison. Commissioner Pattison'MOVED to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioner Stringham questioned the reasonable expectation of the property owner to expect six units per acre. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the lower designation in the area of discussion. Motion FAILED. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Jones'parcel (map site 4) R1-7.2 on the zoning ._ map and SF6 on the Comprehensive Plan map as requested by the property owner. Motion was SECONDED by Commissioner MacIsaac. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Nuss abstained. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to keen SF6 and R1-7.2 designation for map site 5 (Pearson). Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned if this property is the area where citizens had expressed a concern for wetlands preservation. Mr. ONeill informed the Planning Commission that it is in the vicinity, however. the `\ 11 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 ,CPA-93-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 property does not include the wetlands in question. Commissioner Stringham also questioned if RA zoning accommodate nurseries.as a primary use. . Mr. O'Neill.explained that although RA mould make the nursery conforming, it would"create less opportunity in the future to develop the property. Commissioner MacIsaac discussed the issue of zoning the nursery NCC. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Stringham OPPOSED the motion. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to approve the staff recommendation to retain the single family designation for the map site 6 (Conti). Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss questioned the split between an office designation and the wetlands. Commissioner Stringham commented that Mr.�Conti's proposal for office zoning makes a lot of sense. Mr. Conti offered to donate the wetland which would act as a buffer between the office zoning that would be on Kent Kangley and the residential area behind it. Motion FAILED unanimously. Commissioner Russ Strinoham MOVED on map site 6 (Conti) to adopt commercial for Comprehensive Plan designation and professional office for the zoning designation along the entire site as it fronts Kent Kangley Road. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea-Commissioners Stringham,Epperly,Dahle,Morrill,and MacIsaac. Nay- Commissioners Nuss and Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to revise the zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Dahle recommended that the City purchase the property surrounding Clark Lake (map site 8). Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept staff recommendation of map site 9 (Richardson) to retain R1-7.2 zoning. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss . commented that the owner should have clarified the type of senior housing he was requesting zoning for at the time of the public hearing. Motion CARRIED unanimously. 12 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 ,CPA-95-1 and'MZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED to retain the R1-20 zoning as originally proposed by the staff for map site 10 (Pawlowski). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for map site I 1 (Bushey) to keep the SF6 and R1-7.2 designatior�s. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned the staff whether there is a current business at this location. Mr. ONeill informed the Planning Commission that in going out to the location there does not seem to be a business at that location just residential. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Pattison MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to retain the R1-5.0 zoning on map site 12 (Reid letter). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with down-sizing the property's density. Commissioner Epperly asked for the approximate size of the property. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the parcels total about ten acres. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea-Commissioners Dahle,Epperly,Nuss,Morrill, and Pattison. Nay- Commissioners Stringham and MacIsaac. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept the Comprehensive Plan and zoning Alternative 3 with the changes to map site 1 through 12 as indicated above. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss emphasized her content for disregarding the letters presented to the committee. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to adjourn the hearing. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, J P. Harris JH/tb:c;\PCMINl 0.2 13 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 //�o Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: ADULT USE ZONING ZCA-95-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance would amend the zoning setback restrictions for adult use businesses which eliminates the 1000 feet setback restriction from legal, non- conforming residential uses in commercial zones. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember_ k"'lw moves, Councilmember' seconds to adopt Ordinance No. amending the zoning setback restrictions for adult use businesses. 1 f'_ DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 0 0 City Council Planning Committee Minutes November 21, 1995 STREAM BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA - DRAFT INTERIM ZONING CONTROL ORDINANCE AND REGULAR DRAFT ORDINANCE - (T. Brubaker) Mr. Tom Brubaker explained the need to preserve the existing stream buffers relating to the major streams in the Meridian annexation area. In the existing Kent zoning code there is a 50 foot setback requirement for impervious surfaces. No impervious surfaces can be constructed within 50 feet of the high water mark of major streams. However,under the existing County code there is a 100 foot buffer which prohibits changes of any kind except replanting indigenous Northwest vegetation. - Mr. Brubaker requested an interim zoning control. This would preserve the same development standards within the buffer area for up to six months. Mr. Bill Wolinski from the Public Works department explained that the King County buffers were established after a lot of research. Mr. Wolinski has received calls from King County and the Muckleshoot Indian tribe questioning Kent's plan for preserving the existing buffer requirements. Committee member Woods MOVED to send the proposed Ordinance to the City Council on December 12 under the consent calendar for a public hearing and Council's approval. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. The motion carried ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) Ms. Laurie Evezich presented the Committee with a copy of the proposed Ordinance and recommended that the Ordinance be brought before the City Council for approval. The proposed Ordinance is similar to the existing adult use zoning Ordinance with the exception that the existing set back restriction of 1,000 feet from any single family or residential use is eliminated to allow for a zoning for adult use businesses in commercial areas consistent with a U. S. District Court Order from earlier this year. This would establish at least 19 locations for adult use businesses. Chair Leona Orr questioned if the proposed Ordinance would satisfy the Court Order. Ms. Evezich explained that this amendment would allow adult use business to locate in the commercial district but it has the least amount of impact on protected areas. She further explained that the Law Department is confident that this Ordinance is defensible under the First Amendment analysis. Committee member Johnson MOVED to recommend to send the proposed adult use zoning Ordinance to the City Council under other business. Committee member Woods SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS #ZCA-95-2 & #SCA-95-1 (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips presented the Committee with an article and some examples of cluster housing developments. The main reason for proposing cluster development is to implement the 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, regarding the amendment of the zoning setback restrictions for adult uses . WHEREAS, the secondary effects of the activities defined and regulated in Chapter 5 . 10 of the Kent Zoning Code are detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and, therefore, such activities must be regulated as provided in Chapter 5 . 10 of the Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, regulation of the adult entertainment industry is necessary because, in the absence of such regulation, significant criminal activity has historically and regularly occurred. This history of criminal activity in the adult entertainment industry has included prostitution, narcotics , and liauor law violations , breaches of the peace and the presence within the industry of individuals with hidden ownership interests and outstanding arrest warrants; and WHEREAS , contact between entertainers and patrons of adult entertainment businesses facilitates prostitution and other related crimes and the concern over unlawful sexual activities and related crimes as a legitimate health concern of the City which demands reasonable regulation of adult entertainment businesses in order to protect the health and being of the citizens ; and WHEREAS, in the absence of regulation, the activities described in this section occur regardless of whether the adult entertainment is presented in conjunction with the sale of alcoholic beverages ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent desires to prevent these adverse effects and thereby protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry; protect the citizens from increased crime; preserve the quality of life, preserve the property values and character of surrounding neighborhoods; and deter the spread of urban blight ; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent of this ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment or Article Z , Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution, but to enact content neutral regulations which address the secondary effects of the adult entertainment businesses , as well as the health problems associated with such businesses ; and WHEREAS, the City' s adult entertainment zoning restrictions were recently found, by the U. S . District Court for the Western District of Washington, to deny adult entertainment businesses reasonable alternative avenues of communication by not providing an adequate number of alternative sites for the location for such facilities ; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the legislative history which supports the City of Kent ' s adult use zoning setback restrictions; and WHEREAS, the legislative history supports a finding that there are negative secondary effects associated with the operation of adult entertainment businesses within 1, 000 feet of churches, parks , schools , libraries and residential zones ; and WHEREAS, the legislative history, in support of the zoning setback restrictions for adult entertainment businesses , 2 do not indicate that there are negative secondary effects associated with the operation_ of adult entertainment businesses within 1 , 000 feet of legal non-conforming residential or multi- family uses in commercial zones ; NOW THERFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I. The above listed recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects . SECTION 2. Section 15 . 08 . 270 is hereby amended as follows : Sec. 15 . 08 .270 . Adult uses . A. Adult uses , as defined in section 15 . 02 . 008 , are prohibited within the area circumscribed by a circle which has a radius consisting of the following distances from the following specified uses or zones : 1 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any residential zone (RA, A-1 , AG, R1-7 . 2 , R1-9 . 6 , R1-12 , R1-20 , MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H and MHP as provided in chapter 15 . 09) _ y w r _ simdential se . 2 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any public or private school . 3 . Within one thousand (1 , 000) feet of any church or other religious facility or institution. 4 . Within one thousand (1, 000) feet of any public park. 5 . Within one thousand (1 , 000) feet of any public library. 3 B . The distances provided in this section shall be measured by following a straight line , without regard to intervening buildings , from the nearest point of the property or parcel upon which the proposed use is to be located, to the nearest point of the parcel of property or the land use district boundary line from which the proposed land is to be separated. c. Violation of the use provisions of this section is declared to be a public nuisance per se, which shall be abated by the city attorney under state law, including procedures set forth in section 15 . 09 . 090 . D. Nothing in this section is intended to authorize, legalize or permit the establishment , operation or maintenance of any business, building or use which violates any city ordinance or statute of the state regarding public nuisances , sexual conduct, lewdness or obscene or harmful matter or the exhibition or public display thereof . SECTION 3 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence , clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. ATM WHITE, MAYOR a �11/1 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND KING COUNTY FOR ANNEXATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Committee has recommended approval of an Interlocal Agreement between Kent and King County for annexations. The agreement deals with subdivisions, building permits, home repair, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Planning Committee minutes of 11/21/95, and interlocal agreement 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember L%\ti moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the Interlocal Agreement between Kent and King County for annexations, and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. N� CITY OF 7LTTT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White. Mayor December 12, 1995 MEMO TO: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with King County for the Meridian Annexation Area Negotiations are moving forward on the Interlocal Agreement between Kent and King County for land use permit issues in the Meridian Annexation area. The County has responded to our initial proposal and Roger Lubovich and I have sent back to the County a modified proposal, a copy of which is attached. This issue was discussed at the Council Planning Committee on November 21 with the Committee recommending that the Interlocal Agreement be forwarded to the Council for action on December 12 with any refinements that may occur with ongoing negotiations. •- '_'_lI Jrh AVE.SO.. l KEVT.W 4SHLAGTC N 030??-:H9�,TELF.PIIONE_�'_U6 i659-33!)01 FAX x:U9- a ��FFjj CITY OF ��!L l� . F Jim White. Ni lavor CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 21, 1995 Planning Committee ylembers Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Judv Woods (City Council President) Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker Planning Staff Public Works Jim Harris 'Gary Gill Fred Satterstrom Bill Wolinski Linda Phillips Margaret Porter Other City Staff Teresa Beener Mavor Jim White Bob Hutchinson Other Craig Sears, Land Use Consulting Francis E. Leever Kenneth Dozier Sam Vass Barbara Ivanov, Kent Chamber of Commerce Elmira Forner Connie Epperly ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND KING COUNTY FOR ANNEXATIONS - (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris presented the Committee with a boiler plate interlocal agreement he received from King County. Mr. Harris explained the differences between the boiler plate agreement and the proposed Interlocal agreement. The major differences in the Kent proposed agreement was the addition of a home repair section and the jurisdiction for the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). Mr. Harris recommended forwarding the proposal to the City Council for action on December 12. Committee member Judy Woods MOVED to send the Interlocal Agreement for Annexations between Kent and King County to other business at the City Council meeting on December 12 with anv refinements that may occur as a result of ongoing negotiations. Committee member Jon Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. y80?'_.;.SU: 'TFL EPH0NF C06izx5 717.00/FAX=�jy_➢3u ANNEXATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATING TO PROCESSING OF BUILDING PERMITS AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day by and between King County, a home rule charter County in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "County" ) and the City of Kent, a municipal corporation in the State of Washington (hereinafter referred to as the "City" ) . WHEREAS, the City has annexed or will annex one or more areas of unincorporated King County; and WHEREAS, all local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the newly annexed area transfers from the County to the City upon the date of annexation; and WHEREAS, the County and City agree that having the County continue to process certain annexation area building permit applications, land use applications and home repair services on behalf of the City for a transitional period will assist in an orderly transfer of authority and jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, except as otherwise provided, it is the parties intent by virtue of this agreement that King County processing of applications is administrative and ministerial only and that any and all discretionary decisions shall be made by the City; and WHEREAS, this agreement is authorized by the INTERLOCAL Agreement Act, RCW 39 . 34 ; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions herein, it is agreed by and between the City and County as follows : 1 . Building Related Permit Applications . 1 . 1 Except as provided in section 1 . 2 below, the County shall continue to review and approve or deny all building related permit applications filed and vested with the County pursuant to County rules and regulations before the effective date of annexation which involve property within the annexation area. Review shall occur in accordance with County regulations . Said review shall include follow-up inspections and enforcement of conditions of approval, issuance of extensions for completion of inspections, and issuance of ancillary permits, such as fire & mechanical permits , which are essential for completion of each original project permit , provided that applications for these ancillary permits were filed before the effective date of the annexation. The types of building related permits within this grant of authority include but are not limited to : • building permits; • occupancy permits ; • mechanical permits ; • fire systems/fire sprinkler permits ; • hazardous material permits ; • grading and clearing permits . 1 . 2 The County will prepare and send to the City a list of all building related permits and applications pending within the annexation area . The City may exclude from this agreement any permits or applications on the list . For purposes of this agreement, the determination of whether a particular application 2 has vested shall be made by the City. Such exclusion shall be exercised initially by written notice to the County within thirty (30) days following receipt of the applicable list . The City may thereafter notify the County of such other permits or applications it wishes to exclude . 2 . Land Use Related Applications . 2 . 1 Except as provided in section 2 . 8 below, the County shall continue to process those land use related applications filed and vested with the County pursuant to County rules and regulations before the effective date of annexation which involve property within the annexation area . Processing shall occur in accordance with those County regulations . The types of land use related applications contemplated by this section include but are not necessarily limited to : • unclassified use permits ; • conditional use permits; • zoning variances ; • right of way use permits ; • lot line adjustments ; • sensitive areas ordinance variances, reasonable use exceptions and utility exemptions ; shoreline permits and exemptions ; • subdivisions; • short subdivisions ; • land use related grading and clearing permits ; 2 . 2 With regards to those land use permits which do not require a public hearing prior to issuance, the County will provide the City with an inventory of such applications pursuant -. to Section 2 . 8 and promptly continue to process such applications 3 and shall make a report and recommendation to the City' s designated decisionmaker. Any final actions on these applications shall be taken by the City unless otherwise agreed. 2 . 3 For those applications requiring a hearing, legislative approval or involving administrative appeals, the County shall likewise provide the City with an inventory of such applications pursuant to Section 2 . 8 and prepare a report and recommendation to the City for use by its designated decisionmaker . The City shall be responsible for scheduling, providing notice of , and conducting any public hearings required in conjunction with an application. County staff will , at the request of City staff , attend the public hearing. County staff hearing participation will be limited to explanation of any applicable County codes and policies and of County staff findings of fact, analysis of recommendations . County staff will not comment on or defend other findings, analysis or recommendations presented by City staff . 2 . 4 Where the County has begun public hearings on a land use permit application, it shall continue its review of said application until a recommendation or decision is made . 2 . 5 With regard to planned unit developments that have been granted preliminary approval prior to annexation, the County shall continue to review the development through all phases of development . 2 . 6 With regard to those subdivisions that have been granted preliminary approval prior to annexation, after the County files any reports with the City, the County shall turn the application over to the City for all further decisions and processing pursuant to Kent City Code 12 . 04 . 400 unless the County 4 is in the process of engineering plan review, inspections or any other process . In such cases , the County shall complete those processes unless the City determines, at its option, it ' s appropriate for the City to do so, and certify that all plat conditions have been met prior to submitting the file to the City for final approval . 2 . 7 For purposes of this agreement, pertinent review phases include engineering plan approval , final plat approval, construction inspection approval , and maintenance/defect approval . Nothing in this agreement prohibits or limits the City from negotiating, on a case-by-case basis, with the County for additional work and completion of subsequent phases . All financial guarantees required of the applicant at completion of a current review phase to secure compliance with the requirements of subsequent phases, shall be filed with or turned over to the City, which shall have sole discretion on the assessment of required performance and the release of said guarantees . 2 . 8 The County will prepare and send to the City a list of all land use related permits and applications pending within the annexation area . The City may exclude from this agreement any permits or applications on the list . Such exclusion shall be by written notice to the County within thirty (30) days following receipt of the applicable list . The City may thereafter notify the County of such other permits or applications it wishes to exclude . 3 . Home Repair Applications and Permits . This section - applies to all County home repair projects funded through its Community Development Block Grant Program, or otherwise, both - owner occupied home repair and rental rehabilitation projects . 5 3 . 1 The County agrees to continue to provide home repair services within the annexation area through a period of time mutually acceptable to both the County and the City of Kent . With the Annexation area as currently established and known as the Lake Meridian Annexation which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 1996 , the County agrees to provide home repair services for a period of twelve months from annexation. Home repair services include all aspects of the home repair job : labor, materials and final close-out (including any required inspections that are not code-compliance responsibilities) . 3 . 2 Following the period mutually agreed to in section 3 . 1 , the City of Kent will be responsible for providing all owner occupied home repair services to residents living within the annexation area. The County will continue to provide rental rehabilitation services per current County policy. 3 . 3 Any home repair jobs in progress at the end of the mutually agreed period in section 3 . 1, shall be completed by the County with County dollars . This entails all aspects of the home repair job including labor, materials and final close-out (including any required inspections that are not code-compliance responsibilities) . 3 .4 Any home repair jobs committed with County dollars at the end of the mutually agreed upon period in Section 3 . 1, even if not commenced as of said date, shall be completed by the County,' including funding, labor, materials and final close-out (including any required inspections that are not code-compliance responsibilities) . 6 4 . SEPA Compliance . The City shall assume jurisdiction, through its SEPA official, for all environmental reviews by the County in the annexation area under the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA" ) , except where a SEPA review and determination has been made and completed by the County prior to annexation, in which case the County shall continue to process and complete each phase of review, including hearings . At the time of the effective date of annexation, if the County has determined that an environmental impact statement is necessary for an application, the County shall be responsible for the completion of such impact statement up to the hearing stage on the environmental impact statement . The City may, however, at its option, assert jurisdiction and lead agency status and complete the environmental impact statement instead of the County. 5 . Administrative and Ministerial Processing. 5 . 1 Unless otherwise provided, County review specified in this agreement is intended to be of an administrative and ministerial nature only. Any and all legislative or quasi- judicial decisions or decisions of a discretionary nature shall be made by the City and/or its designated decisionmaker. 5 . 2 For purposes of this agreement, discretionary decisions shall include, but are in no respect limited to, SEPA procedural determinations and decisions to condition or deny any permit approval on SEPA grounds except where a SEPA determination and action has been made by the County for a vested project . In such case, the County' s determination shall stand as the determination on the matter. 7 6 . Referral of New Requests . The County agrees to advise permit applicants that any new building or land use applications or permit requests within the boundaries of the annexation areas must be submitted to the City. The County agrees to accept requests for permit renewals or extensions only when construction has already begun and such renewal or extension is necessary to complete the project under the terms of this agreement . The County will not accept new requests for ancillary permits for buildings under construction after the effective date of the annexation. The County will not accept permit applications which seek to extend the use or dimensions of the project under construction, or which seek approval for free standing signs, tenant improvements or accessory structures . 7 . Enforcement . The County is authorized, on behalf of the City, to enforce conditions of approval for those applications which the County has retained review authority pursuant to this agreement . The City shall be responsible for all other enforcement actions normally taken by the County' s Code Enforcement Section pursuant to King County Code Title 23 , including those relating to said applications and shall be responsible for enforcement of conditional DNS ' s on Environmental Impact Statements completed by the County unless the matter is still under review by the County and the City has not assumed jurisdiction at the time of enforcement . 8 . ProcessinQ Prioritv. The County agrees to process annexation area applications made prior to the official date of any annexation in accordance with the County' s administrative - procedures, at the same level of service as provided County applications . 8 9 . Filing Fees . In order to cover the costs of performing services pursuant to this agreement, the County shall be authorized to collect and retain such application and other fees authorized by the County fee ordinances on applications it is processing. The County will refund the applicant for the unexpended vortion of any filing fees paid to the County which needs to be refiled with the City pursuant to paragraph 6 . 10 . Termination. This agreement is intended to coordinate the provision of building permit and development application services to the annexation areas . Either party, through its legislative authority, may terminate this agreement upon providing at least thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. 11 . Termination Procedures . Upon termination of this agreement , the County shall cease further processing, enforcement , and related review functions with respect to applications identified in Sections 1 and 2 of this agreement . The County shall thereupon transfer to the City those application files and records, posted bonds , and unexpended portions of filing fees for pending land use and building related applications within the annexation areas . Transfer documents shall specify the work performed to date on the applications and shall be signed by the appropriate County official . Upon transfer, the City shall notify affected applicants that it has assumed all further processing responsibility. 12 . Application Process . The County and the City will each prepare and have available for applicants and other interested parties and document describing the handling of applications based on this agreement . 9 13 . Legal Representation. Except as set forth in Section 14 below, and except for such routine advice as may be provided to the County in furtherance of its services as described in this agreement, the services to be provided by the County pursuant to this agreement do not include legal services, which shall be provided by the City at its dwn expense . 14 . Indemnification. 14 . 1 The County shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses , and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the County, its officers, agents , and employees, or any of them, in performing obligations pursuant to this agreement . In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the City, the County shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that the City retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the City and its cfficers , agents, employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agen s, and employees, or any of them, the County shall satisfy the -same . 14 . 2 The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the County and -ts officers , agents and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses , and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason or arising out of any negligent action or omission of the City, its officers, agen_s , and employees , or any of them, in performing obligations 10 pursuant to this agreement . In the event that any suit based upon such a claim, action, loss, or damage is brought against the County, the City shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that the County retains the right to participate in said suit if any principal of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment be rendered against the County and its officers, agents , employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and County and their respective officers, agents , and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same . 14 . 3 The City a=d County further agree that their obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claims, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its - employees or agents . For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives as respects to the other party, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of RCW Title 51 . 14 . 4 The City and the County acknowledge and agree that if such claims, actions , suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages are caused b_J or result from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents , employees, and/or officers and the County, its agents , employees , and/or officers, this Section shall be valid and enforceab__= only to the extent of the negligence of each party, its age=s, employees and/or officers . 15 . Administra ion. This agreement shall be administered by the King County Director of Development and Environmental Services or his/her designee, and the City Director of Operations , or his/:-er designee . 11 16 . Subsequent Annexations. This agreement shall govern all future annexations to the City in which applications for development approval are then pending with King County. Processing of applications in newly annexed areas shall commence under the terms of this Agreement after the City provides notice to King County of annexation` Following such notice, the County . shall list and the City may exclude from County processing any applications it deems appropriate in the manner set forth in sections 1 . 2 and 2 . 8 above . 17 . Amendments . This agreement is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral representation or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Any modifications to this agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement - to be executed. KING COUNTY GARY LOCKE Dated King County Executive Approved as to form: NORM MALENG King County Prosecuting Attorney By: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated 12 CITY OF KENT JIM WHITE, Mayor Dated Approved as to form: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, Citv Attorney Dated kcinter3agr.fin 13 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , _1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KOSNOSKI ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-9 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended amendments to the (GWC) Gateway Commercial Zoning District in the Kent Zoning Code (ZCA-95-9) which will broaden the per- mitted uses in the GWC, adding certain commercial and small- scale industrial uses. 3 . EXHIBITS: P1 nning Commission minutes of 11/27/95 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Plann' n Commission (Committee, Staff, xaminer, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PER ONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember move, Councilmember (uLV, seconds to approve the amendments to the (GWC) Gateway Commercial Zoning District in the Kent Zoning Code, which will broaden the permitted uses in the GWC, adding certain commercial and small- scale industrial uses, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• Vvu ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. *&VXQ CITY OF CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Jini White, Mayor MEMORANDUM November 20, 1995 MEMO TO: RUSS STRINGHAM, VICE-CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GWC (GATEWAY COMMERCIAL) ZONE -#ZCA-95-9 (KOSNOSKI) Proposal: E & K Properties (aka, Ed Kosnoski) filed an application for zoning code amendment on September 14, 1995. Specifically, the application requests that the Gateway Commercial (GWC) zone be amended to permit a wider range of land uses than is presently allowed. Some of the proposed new uses mentioned in the regulatory review request are storage/repairs, auto leasing and/or repair, and light industrial activities. This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its October 9, 1995 workshop. At that time, the Commission agreed to move forward and hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment on November 27, 1995. Background: The GWC zone exists only along East Valley Highway from approximately S. 21 2th Street on the north to the SR 167 overpass on the south. The GWC zone was created in 1988 following completion of the "East Valley Study" (EVS), and subsequently applied to properties along East Valley Highway through an area-wide rezone. Prior to the application of GWC zoning, properties along East Valley Highway were zoned for industrial use (either M2, M3 or CM-1 ). However, in 1988 the 212th Street interchange along SR 167 opened to traffic and there was great speculation that lands along East Valley Highway would experience pressure for commercial use as a result. In addition, the East Valley Study indicated that several commercial businesses were already located along the corridor. Both factors fueled the area-wide rezoning of frontage properties to GWC. To provide for a high quality commercial environment (and avoid a "commercial strip" along East Valley Highway), the use restrictions and development standards of the GWC zone were drawn rather tightly. Restrictions were placed on the number of auto-oriented businesses, such as fast-food restaurants, generous landscaping was required along front property lines, 1 �� "01ih AVE.SO /KENTWASH]m7oV '0W1859-:100iFT # i9-13-- Russ Stringham, Vice Chair, and Planning Commission Members Gateway Commercial Zone Amendment #ZCA-95-9 (Kosnoski) November 20, 1995 and use activities were required to be housed completely within buildings (i.e., to discourage unsightly outside storage). The vision conceived by GWC zoning has not been realized to a significant degree along East Valley Highway. Commercial uses have been established at the north end of the dbrridor (e.g., ARCO minimart and McDonald's Restaurant) and at the south end (e.g., Valu Inn, Cypress Inn, and Mitzel's Restaurant). But, between these nodes, significant commercial development has not occurred. In fact, four applications for rezones back to the original manufacturing zoning have been approved by the City Council for the rear portions of lots abutting East Valley Highway. In addition, several requests for potential commercial use of vacant properties or existing buildings along the corridor have been rejected because of inconsistency with use restrictions. Analysis of Regulatory Review Request: The applicant states that the GWC zoning has constricted the use of his property, presumably because the range of permitted uses is too narrow. Staff met with the applicant on November 3, 1995 to discuss potential additional commercial uses for the GWC zone. On the basis of that meeting, the following suggestions were made by the applicant: -construction storage/mobile units -mechanical repairs -cabinet shop -storage of autos -auto repair -auto sales -tooling - -light industrial -computer repair Some of the above uses are currently permitted outright in the GWC zone, namely computer repair and mechanical repair (provided these activities occur within an enclosed building. Additionally; auto repair is allowed as a conditional use. These uses occur largely or completely within buildings and are consistent with the intent of the GWC zone. On the other hand, uses such as outside storage of construction mobile units and automobiles do not appear to be consistent with the zone's objectives. Other suggested uses, such as cabinet shops and light industrial activities, may represent potential compatible uses. These activities commonly are conducted within buildings with only incidental storage. Therefore, with certain limitations, these uses may be consistent the objectives of the GWC zone. 2 Russ Stringham, Vice Chair, and Planning Commission Members Gateway Commercial Zone Amendment #ZCA-95-9 (Kosnoski) November 20, 1995 The CM-1 (Commercial Manufacturing-1 ) zone contains language in its use provisions which may be useful in considering alternative uses which are compatible with GWC goals. Three categories of principally permitted uses are relevant here: 1 . Contractor shops; 2. Small scale manufacturing; and 3. Miniwarehouses. Within certain guidelines, these uses could be compatible with the visual and envircnrnental quality objectives of the GWC zone. That is, these uses commonly involve low impact land uses which operate largely within enclosed buildings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adding the following principally permitted use provisions to the GWC zone, Section 1 5.04.195(A). (Proposed language is borrowed heavily from the existing CM-1 zone's principally permitted use section: 1. Contractor shops where most of the work is done on call, and which do not rely on walk-in trade, but where some incidental storage or semi-manufacturing work is done on the premises, such as carpentry, heating, electrical or glass shops, printing, publishing, or lithographic shops, furniture upholstery, dry cleaning and exterminators. 2. Small scale, light industrial or manufacturing operations where the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area. The 10,000 square feet total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one of these uses shall be allowed per lot. 3. Miniwarehouses. FNS/cw:kosnoski.gwc cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Ed Kosnoski/E & K Properties 3 Planning Commission Minutes - November 27, 1995 4ZCA-95-9 (KOSNOSKI) GWC AMENDMENT (F. Satterstrom) This was a regulatory review request filed by Mr. Ed Kosnoski who owns some property in the GWC zone on East Valley Highway. It is Mr. Kosnoski's opinion that the GWC zone is too narrow in the range of uses that it permits. Mr. Kosnoski is requesting the following}ises be allowed in the GWC zone: • construction storage/mobile units • mechanical repairs • cabinet shops • storage of automobiles • auto repair • auto sales • new and/or used tooling • light industrial • computer repair Some of the above uses (computer and mechanical repairs) are already allowed in the GWC zone as long as the repairs are completed within an enclosed building. Auto repairs are permitted with a conditional use permit. The outside storage of construction mobile units and the sales and storage of automobiles are inconsistent with the zone's objectives. The GWC zone was developed to create opportunities for business but within enclosed buildings rather than creating a lot of outside storage. The staff is recommending that the GWC zone be expanded to allow the following uses: 1. Contractor shops where most of the work is done on call, and which do not rely on walk-in trade, but where some incidental storage or semi- manufacturing work is done on the premises, such as carpentry, heating, electrical or glass shops,printing,publishing, or lithographic shops, fiuniture upholstery. dry cleaning and exterminators. 2. Small scale, light industrial or manufacturing operations where the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area. The 10,000 square feet total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one of these uses shall be allowed per lot. 3. Mini-warehouses Commissioner Dozier questioned whether Mr. Kosnoski has an existing building on the property. Mr. Satterstrom explained that Mr. Kosnoski has a building and a small storage in the back. } S 4ZCA-95-9 GWC Amendment TCPZ-95-Z Zoning Map Amendments Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: COMP PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CPZ-95-2, (PHASE II VALLEY FLOOR/WEST HILL) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended zoning map changes for seven (7) areas in the Valley Floor and West Hill, as identified in the staff report. This action will implement the recently adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report dated 11/20/95 and Planning Commission minutes of 11/27/95 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission - (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment CPZ-95-2 (Phase II - Valley Floor/West Hill) regarding the zoning map changes for seven (7) areas on West Hill/Valley Floor, as identified in the staff report, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. I* - CITY OF L"LO CITY OF KENT Jim White, Mayor - (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM December 8, 1995 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR SUBJECT: PHASE II ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP - #CPZ-95-2 - On November 27, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding #CPZ- 95-2 - zoning map amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This is Phase II of a two phase project. Phase I was focused on zoning map amendments on the East Hill, while this phase is focused on the West Hill and Valley Floor. After considering the staff report and public testimony at the November 27th hearing, the Commission made a recommendation for Phase II amendments to the City of Kent Zoning Map. The Planning Commission considered potential zoning map changes for seven areas on West Hill and the Valley floor which were identified by staff. These areas are shown in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission, dated November 20, 1995. These areas were identified by comparing the Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan with the Official Zoning Map, and determining which areas could possibly be rezoned. The Planning Commission's recommended zoning for each area is included in the November 20, 1995 staff report, unamended. The minutes from the November 27th meeting are also attached for your reference. Planning Department staff will be available at the December 12th meeting to further explain the recommended zoning changes. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 859-4152. MJ/a:cpz952.mem Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner 2201[h AVE.SO.. l KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895l TELEPHONE (2061859-3300 f FAX#959-3134 ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN #CPZ-95-2 Phase II - West Hill, Valley Floor i Kent Planning Department November 1995 CITY OF ZQ,�j ' _ Jim White, Mayor CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM November 20, 1995 TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR SUBJECT: PHASE II ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP - #CPZ-95-2 Attached is the staff report for Phase H zoning map amendments to implement the Land Use Plan Map in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The staff report includes individual maps and analysis for each of the sites being proposed for zoning map changes, as well as a vicinity map, City-wide zoning map, and Land Use Plan Map. The attached maps should assist the Commission members and the public in reviewing the proposed changes in context with the overall zoning and Land Use Plan Map designations in the City. If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please contact Matt or Kevin at 859-3390. cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner } tb:CPZ2.MEM "', ?204ih AVE.SO.. IKENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE R061859-3300/FA.Y#859-3334 Xy/ ;L WIVz 3 , � : 17 41 7 L-c VICINITY MAP / PROPOSED ZONING 1 R1 -7.2 TO GC 2 RA TO Rl - 12 RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. I UNIT/ACRE 3 MH TO Ri-7.2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, I UNIT/7.200 SQUARE FEET PGC RI-12 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. I UNI.T/12.000 SQUARE F.EBY 4 M R M TO GC &1HP MOBILE HOME PARK NfRG MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 16 UNITS/ACRE 5 CMI -Il & R1 -7 .2 TO CM-Il NIRM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 23 UNITS/ACRE § 6 CM- H TO M R G GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL 7 RI -7.2 TO CM-11 COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING Introduction This project involves amending the City's zoning map to bring it into conformance with the Land Use Plan Map in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Consistency between zoning and the comprehensive plan is required by the Growth Management Act. This is the second phase of a two phase project. Phase I focused on East Hill (#CPZ-95-1), while Phase II will deal with the Valley Floor and West Hill (#CPZ-95-2). The City Council approved Phase I zoning map amendments on November 7, 1995. The Planning Commission held a workshop on Phase H zoning sites on November 13, 1995, at which time each area being considered for a potential zoning amendment in Phase II was reviewed. Maps have been produced for each site and are included as a part of this report. Background On April 18, 1995, the City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #3222). Included in the Land Use Element is the Land Use Plan Map, which establishes and guides land use and densities throughout the city and unincorporated land within Kent's Potential Annexation Area. At the time of adoption of the Kent Comprehensive Plan, several areas were inconsistent in terms of the zoning map and the Land Use Plan Map. These areas could be incompatible in terms of land use, or not zoned to the maximum residential density allowed under the Land Use Plan Map. In addition, areas given a Mixed Use des ionation on the Land Use Plan Map were considered for potential rezones in anticipation of future amendments to the zoning code to allow such use in the General Commercial zoning district. Staff Analysis and Recommendations The following pages include a map for each of the seven study areas and the zoning recommendations. The shaded area represents the parcels being considered for a rezone. Existing Land Use Plan Map and zoning designations are outlined for each area, as well as the designations for surrounding properties. The characteristics of each site are then described, followed by a staff recommendation. To assist in locating each of the sites, a vicinity map is included. A Zoning Districts Map and Land Use Plan Map from the Comprehensive Plan are included in this report as a reference. I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE II r I i - _ II' I - If I \ I' l ! O 0 0 t O O O • C3 O .F :i. REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA I EXISTING ZONING: R1 - 7 . 2 PROPOSED ZONING: GC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL AREA 1 Size of Area: 4.56 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential) Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Commercial South: SF-6 East: SF-6 West: Freeway (1-5) Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: GC South: R1-7.2 East: RI-7.2 West: Freeway (1-5) Analysis: This site is located near the Midway interchange of Interstate 5. Access to the site is from Military Road. The site lies between the commercial area along Kent-Des Moines Road and the single family residential area to the south (Nike Manor). The site slopes to the north, generally at slopes less than 15 percent grade. Staff Recommendation: GC, General Commercial r �r �E '�J 1 � • j .yi��Gi.�y �n us)?NC-- � ` .r��a -.'n..-t�s e�r �.s� 1 , � I I \• `b�+'4�M ,r �c� Y s�,� r5 .yam .--� '� � e = '�1�< rtA�,cl� y fi ti 5 r ti i a�a� •� G t•� t_■ J 4 +. �, � fad '- { t �} r'">•3 f � r S � a i ♦ s � - L AREA 2 Size of Area: Approximately 200 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-3 Current Zoning: RA Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties North: Low Density Residential (Sea-Tac) South: SF-1, Commercial West: MDMF, LDMF, Commercial, Low Density Residential (Sea-Tac) East: Agricultural Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties North: UL 15,000 (Sea-Tac) South: RA, GC West: MRM, MRG, CC, UL 15,000 (Sea-Tac) East: A-1 Analysis: The City of Seattle owns approximately 350 acres of property in this general vicinity. To the south of the subject property is the former Kent Highlands Landfill, which is zoned RA and designated as SF-1 in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property, which consists of approximately 200 acres, is also currently zoned RA. There were extensive discussions held on - this property by both the Planning Commission and City Council during their respective deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council designated the property as SF-3. The property is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including agricultural, single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial. The parcel is distinguished by environmental constraints, both in the form of steep slopes and wetlands, so that much of the property will not be developed. Cluster zoning provisions, which are currently under consideration by the City Council, would allow zoning densities to be "clustered" on most buildable portions of the site, while avoiding or limiting impacts to the more sensitive areas. During public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, the property owner, which is the City of Seattle, expressed the desire to market the property as a unified master planned development. Staff Recommendation: R1-12, Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING - ui I ,�\'. III �/ 1�/ '� � rO �LJU(!�a�00 �� �i0 -• _' �/ � ti a 113 it El 1 nn U -— I lo - I I r ❑\ 1 l' � __ ❑ � � O � t� I ' i t 1 ❑ �_ � oED �'PROPQSED tD I - - - = - - ,� ,II i I Ir \ � r REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA. 3. EXISTING ZONING: MHP PROPOSED ZONING: GC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL AREA 3 Size of Area: 0.62 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: MHP - Mobile Home Park Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Commercial South: Mobile Home Park East: Mobile Home Park West: Commercial Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: GC South: MHP East: MHP West: GC Analysis: This site is a separate tax lot from the mobile home park located to the east and south and contains a single family residence. Properties which border the site to the north and west are zoned for commercial use. The owners of the property expressed their desires for commercial use during deliberations on the comprehensive plan. In response, the City Council gave the property a Commercial designation on the Plan map. Implementation of General Commercial zoning would make the zoning consistent with the Plan designation. Staff Recommendation: GC, General Commercial o - i cn O w g Ho STo v CC , l PROPOSED JAM E S HELEN ST . --------------- ---- 05 '1 1; 0 V ��i I ail NEE REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 4 EXISTING ZONING: MRM PROPOSED ZONING: GC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED USE AREA 4 Size of Area: 2.5 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning: MR-M (Medium Density Multifamily) Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Manufacturing Center South: Mixed Use East: Community Facility `Vest: Mixed Use - Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: M3 South: GC East: M2 Nest: GC Analysis: This site consists of two parcels, one which is developed with an apartment complex and the other which is undeveloped. Area #4 is bordered by industrial zoning to the north, commercial use to the west and south, and the Valley Freeway (SR 167) on the east. Notwithstanding the existing apartments, this site is not conducive to future residential development. Although "Mixed Use" zoning has not been defined at this time, the application of Commercial zoning, such as GC (General Commercial), would give additional development options to property owners which may be more feasible in light of the site's limitations for residential use. It is anticipated that the eventual implementation of Mixed Use zoning, however, will allow for residential use. Staff Recommendation: GC, General Commercial COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION-- PHASE II El CE n I , \ 1 ST ° 11J ` E:Lj t� Z [L CE a,�, o , , / /; Fri ; i/� \/I r + i - �`71LJIII O OSEDEl Elp '" " l , ..\ 11 Ito LJ � II gal I i,Illi� ll� It.�•. ,���� \ ��\`' �. 1 `� '� .. REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 5 EXIUrl'I'; v{, 1_��: : +✓iri - i,ttl-7.2 PROPOSED ZONING: CM-II COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERC IAL IAL Area 5 Size of Area: 1.62 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: CM-II, R1-7.2 Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: SF-6 South: Commercial East: SF-6 Nest: Commercial Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: CM-II, R1-7.2 South: CM-II, R1-7.2 East: R1-7.2 `Vest: CM-II Analysis: This site is located at 708 South Central Avenue and is occupied by an existing office/warehouse. Currently the zoning boundary splits the property in half, with the western section zoned CM-II, Commercial Manufacturing, and the east side zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential. The owner of the property expressed his desire to adjust the zoning line to include the entire property in the CM-II zoning district. The site was given a commercial designation on the Land Use Plan Map. This reflects the existing use of the property as well as the topographic situation on the site. The property lies at the base of Scenic Hill. Steep slopes are evident on the eastern portion of the site, but a small bench of lesser slope extends through the middle of the property. The area east of the site which is zoned R1-7.2 is developed with single family homes at the top of the hill overlooking the valley floor. Staff Recommendation: CM-II, Commercial Manufacturing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE II o _ 0 E-1 Q Ep Cc o opt z a o 00 o - - ❑ a � a ❑ oo', EpROPOSEb ,y MRG F1 If NiNBE REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 6. EXISTING ZONING: CM-II PROPOSED ZONING: MRG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: LDMF - AREA 6 Size of Area: .83 acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDMF Current Zoning: CM-II Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: Commercial South: Commercial East: MDMF Nest: Commercial Zoning Designations of surrounding Properties: North: R1-7.2 South: CM-II East: MRM Nest: CM-II - Analysis: This site is located at 8211 South 259th Street, just east of South Central Avenue. The site has a Land Use Plan Map designation of Low Density Multifamily and is currently zoned Commercial Manufacturing. Testimony was given by the applicant during hearings on the Comprehensive Plan requesting that his property first be designated as multifamily residential, and subsequently rezoned to multifamily to recognize the existing residential use of the property. Properties to the east of the site are zoned for medium density multifamily development at a density up to 23 units per acre. Staff Recommendation: MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE II 000 0 �a0 �� QO0 0 o PROPOSED CID CM- II n I ❑ o �] ❑ ❑ o — REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA . 7 EXISTING ZONING : R1 -7 .2 PROPOSED ZONING: CM-I CO MPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL AREA 7 Size of Area: .96 Acres Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: R1-7.2 Plan designations of Surrounding Properties: - North: MHP South: LDMF, MDMF East: MHP West: Commercial Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties: North: MHP South: CM-II, MRM East: MHP West: CM-II - Analysis: This site is located at 8406 South 258th Street, east of South Central Avenue. It is adjacent to a mobile home park to the north and east. Properties south and west of the site are commercial. Multifamily development is also near the site. The site is designated as Commercial on the Land Use Plan Map. Due to the nature of other developments in the area, and the fact that this parcel is the only one zoned R1-7.2, commercial zoning would be more consistent with the overall pattern of land use and zoning in the vicinity. The site is flat and accessible from South 258th Street. Staff Recommendation: CM-II, Commercial Manufacturing i ATTACHMENTS i F 1. Land Use Plan Map 2. Zoning Districts r, ' jj 1�7fyhT1 SIS Jr -I_ 16RF5 11 "Ill3'1 I F� ❑�-�J,n.,L�� I( i ��1- , ., 111 1 IILI� M — o Mlfo I 4 � , I 1 , - eonis / a N Lire Al 1 �1 m6 nvE m ..o nJ sE I_ m 111 1 4U <nF F r �sE ,n .,zap s _� �11 7w l — -- 5 n M O y C c y •-3 � a a H 7 — O y Woo �•`�i�� ,i� � pia_ ♦i�- ♦��;� ail s,�'��II U♦j� . �[ N.. r �I ( . ♦ ::::::: �: Itltll Ex UM—11 HFINUMN 7 im ►` ►�x - .:: ... .......... ......... ..IIS 5. ...�• ...11 1+1-SIE. �. • x�i L t li•� �s®Ir�i pox �:x J��\�:����•- moo i 7 � ��{{�I�'e_x ELL�ilalx�4�•e llllll�lLPUMA IIIII�i.T�S't���•�edl`'� _.. SRo lll_Pualub .o ` I� m....l tea. curl III n_Li IIIfiIIlR���;��1�IILI� logo,e,� i Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1995 #CPZ-95-2 PHASE II - VALLEY FLOOR &WEST HILL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (M. Jackson) i Planner Matt Jackson explained that the Growth Management Act requires consistencv between the Comprehensive Plan land use map and the zoning map. The Comprehensive map was adopted by the City Council on April IS, 1995. This is the second phase of a two phase project. Phase II focuses on the Valley Floor and West Hill. Staffhas identified seven sites where a rezone is warranted to bring the zoning in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning staff outlined each individual site and gave a brief description: i Area 1 Current zoning: R1-7.2 Staff recommended zoning: GC i i - This site is approximately four and a half acres located on West Hill at the intersection of the Kent- Des Moines Road and Military Road. The propert< slopes up to a 15 percent grade. � I I Area 2 Current zoning: RA Staff recommended zoning: R1-12 i I i - This property has been referred to as the Kent Highlands and is owned by the City of Seattle. The site is approximately 200 acres and is located on West Hill. The parcel has significant development constraints up to 40 percent slopes. The applicant has expressed a desire to market the property as a unified master planned development. Vice Chair Stringham clarified that the Comprehensive Plan designation of SF represents the maximum density allowed. Mr. Jackson confirmed that the zoning can be up to the Comprehensive j Plan designation. Area 3 Current zoninLY: 11HP Staff recornrnended zoning: GC This lot is surrounding by GC and MHP zoning. It is a small lot; approximately one half acre in size. The parcel is currently occupied by a single family dwelling. j Vice Chair Stringhasn questioned whether the property owner had a specific project in mind when they requested the GC zoning. \Lr. Satterstrom indicated that the owner had several interests for developing the property commercial: however. nothing speciil: was indicated. i f I mZC_t-9�-9 GLY"C:Irnendment RCPZ-9i-�Zor.iirgl�fep.7mers'rn�r�ts 4 I Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1995 Area 4 Current zoning: N. IRRM Staff recommended zoning: CC i This site consists of two parcels located north of James Street and west of SR 167. Tire parcels together are approximately two and a half acres. 1 i Commissioner tifacIsaac questioned tha. reasoning for taking both pieces of property into j consideration. Mr. Satterstrom explained that general commercial designation would be compatible with the multi-family usage. The plan is to designate commercial zoning all along James Street. Area 5 Current zoning: CM-II, R1-7.2 Staff recommended zoning: CM-II i This parcel is approximately one and a half acres located just east of Central Avenue on the valley I floor. This site currently has a split zoning. Steep slopes are evident on the eastern portion of the j site as well as to the north and south of the property. The property is currently being used solely for commercial uses. Area 6 Current zoning: CM-II Staff recommended zonmg: MRG This parcel is just shy of an acre located east of Central Avenue and south of S. 259th. The property is currently being used for residential uses. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the love density multi-family designation. Mr. Jackson was unsure of the exact reason for this but hypothesized that it was probably due to the slender lot size. Area 7 Current zoning R1-7? Staff recommended zoning: CM-II This parcel is located directiv north of area 6 and is appro iir_ately an acre in size. The property is j adjacent to a mobile home park to the north and east. I'his is the only parcel in the area with a singe j family designation. Vice Chair Stringham opened the public hearing. i I Public Testimonv: Mr. Ravmond Frey (R. Frey & Associates). 1075 Belle%-ue Way NE. Su`!- 117, Bellevue. «_ . 95001. VIr.Frey represents ��eiQht�Vatcners oC Greater\�"ashington state L^o is one of the properr• owners included in area fir. Frey explained tl_eir coaunued involvement in th s process ar_d pporis staff recommeadatioh for GC zoning. I 3 =ZC.4-J�-9 GYYC,amendment �.`-CPZ-J?-!Zanrng:Yfcp.-lmerdments Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1995 Mr. Frank Hollis (Church by the Side of the Road), 27235 51st Place S. The Church by the Side of the Road owns property in area 2. Mr. Hollis questioned if a change in the zoning would still allow a church to built in the area. Vice Chair Stringham reassured Mr. Hollis that churches were a permitted use in all single family residential zones. Ms. Starlene Strickland, 21636 35th Avenue S, SeaTac. Ms. Strickland had several questions regarding development in area 2. Vicc�Chair Stringham informed Ms. Strickland that cluster development is still in the planning stages and that with any development in the City of Kent the neighbors within a 200 foot radius would be notified. Ms. Grace Chen, City of Seattle. Ms. Chen conveyed the City of Seattle's support for the staff recommendation of R1-12.0 designation for area 2. - Mr. Paul Morford, P. 0. Box 6345. Mr. Morford recommended keeping the existing RA zoning in area 2 and without owner representation for the developed portion of area 4 that parcel should also remain with existing zoning (MRM). Commissioner Epperly MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept the staff recommendations for Phase II zoning map amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Epperly questioned whether there was a group attempting to purchase the property in area 2. Ms. Chen explained that the City of Seattle is attempting to market the property as a whole and the Steel League Little League has made an offer on a portion of the property and therefore their offer had been rejected. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned whether the City had plans for using this property (area 2) for more City parks. Mr. Harris, Planning Director, explained that purchasing this particular parcel is not in the capital facilities plan at this time. Commissioner Epperly questioned whether or not the property owners of area 4 had been notified. Mr. Satterstrom explained that a public notice had been sent to all concerned. Vice Chair Stringham questioned whether the existing multifamily unit in area 4 would be protected from the non- conforming use problems. Mr. Satterstrom confirmed that the property would not be constrained by the non-conforming restrictions. Motion to accept staff recommendation carried. I 4 9ZC.4-95-9 GWC Amendment #CPZ-95-2 Zoning 'Yfa,o.-Imendments Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX LEVY AMENDMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the November 7, 1995 Council meeting, the property tax levy Ordinance No. 3245 was adopted based on preliminary amounts from King County. Since that date, updated information has been provided from King County that show the City is eligible to receive an additional $95, 242 . May Miller from the Finance Department will give a brief overview of the tax changes and recommened tax levy amendment. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and worksheets 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember `._ moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of Or finance No. L-L amending the General Fund Tax Levy amount to $11, 618, 041. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4" ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, amending the tax levy for 1996 established pursuant to Ordinance No . 3245 . WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84 . 52 . 070 , the City of Kent must , on or before the thirtieth day of November in each year, certify to the county assessor the amount of taxes levied upon property within the City for City purposes, provided that the county assessor has certified assessed values at least twelve working days before November 30 ; and WHEREAS, the City is relieved from its statutory obligation to provide its property tax certification if the County fails to meet its deadline; and .WHEREAS , the City Council on November 7, 1995 , adopted Ordinance No . 3245 establishing the 1996 tax levy which levy includes an amount of $11 , 522 , 799 . 00 for the City' s general fund; and WHEREAS, the County had not, at the time of adoption of Ordinance No . 3245 , certified assessed values as required by RCW 84 . 48 . 130 ; and Tax Levy WHEREAS, subsequent to adoption of Ordinance No . 3245 , the County submitted its property tax certification to the City; and WHEREAS, the County certification contains assessed values lower than anticipated; and WHEREAS, as a result of the County' s certification, the City Council desires to make adjustments to the 1996 tax levy amount by $95 , 242 . 00 for a total amount of $11 , 618 , 041 . 00 ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84 . 52 . 010 and WAC 458-12-365 , taxes shall be levied in specific dollar amounts ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Recitals Incor-corated. The foreacina recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Section 2 . Levy Amended. The assessed value levied against the property in the City of Kent , Washington, for the - City' s 1996 municipal tax as adopted in Ordinance No . 3245 is hereby amended by increasing the tax levy for the general fund by $95 , 242 . 00 for a total of $11 , 618 , 041 . 00 thereby establishing the following as the levied amounts for the following funds : A. For the General Fund, for the purpose of paying the genera-- expenses of municipal government : 2 Tax Levy Fund Amount General Fund $11, 618 , 041 . 00 B . For Voted Bond Interest and Redemption Fund, for the purpose of paying debt service in the following amounts for the following funds : Fund Amount Public Safety $ 557 , 120 . 00 Senior Housing $ 319 , 500 . 00 General obligation Refunding $ 780 , 695 . 00 Section 3 . Limitation on Levv. The application of the general fund levy shall be consistent with and not result in a tax revenue in excess of the limitation imposed by RCW 84 . 55 . 010 . Section 4 . Reservation of Rights . Pursuant to RCW 84 . 52 . 105 , the City reserves its right to adjust its certified property tax assessment at its next regularly scheduled council meeting following receipt of the Ccunty' s certified assessed values . Section 5 . Adjustments . Administration shall administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A. 33 . 120 . Section G . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such 3 Tax Levy invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . Section 7 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of publication of this ordinance . JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 4 Tax Levy 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 _evy.crd Tax Lew PROPERTY TAX AMENDMENT PROPOSED USES FOR FULL AMOUNT LEVIED Adopted Budget 11,522,799 Adjustments for : Annexation levy, based on higher levy rate due to lower than expected assessed valuation. 39,039 Omitted assessments levy 5,857 Refund fund levy 50,346 ------------------ Adjusted Levy Request 11,618,041 Adjusted Levy Request 11,618,041 Less adopted budget 11,522,799 ------------------ Additional revenues available 95,242 Proposed Uses Boat For Marine Patrol 20,000 Increase to Fund Balance 75,242 ------------------ Total Proposed Uses 95,242 prpopts 07-Dec-95 PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON LEVY RATES AND DOLLARS REQUESTED ADJUSTED PER ACTUAL VALUATION INFORMATION CHANGES 1993 1994 1995 1996 FROM PERCENT ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 1995 CHANGE ASSESSED VALUATION BASE 3,891,977,069 3,849,032,079 3,858,188,500 3,923,361,319 65,172,819 1.7% ANNEXATIONS 48,658,615 120,018,471 71,359,856 146.7% NEW CONSTRUCTION 46,705,110 44,399,000 52,852,670 85,023,640 32,170,970 60.9% ti ASSESSED VALUATION TOTAL 3,938,682,179 3,893,431,079 3,959,699,785 4,128,403,430 168,703,645 4.3% PROPERTY TAX LEVIES: GENERAL FUND 10,124,967 10,884,340 10,385,879 11,618,041 1,232,182 11.9% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FIRE APPARATUS 44,981 PUBLIC SAFETY 1,198,208 606,810 605,910 557,120 (48,790) -8.1% SENIOR HOUSING 698,886 208,550 350,650 319,500 (31.150) -8.9% 93 GO REFUNDING 872,670 873,133 780,695 (92,438) -10.6% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS TOTAL 1,942,075 1,688,030 1,829,693 1,657,315 (172,378) -9.4% TOTAL TAX LEVY 12,067,042 12,572,370 12,215,572 13,275,356 1,059,784 8.7% LEVY RATES: GENERAL FUND 2.56 2.80 2.62 2.81 0.19 7.4% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS FIRE APPARATUS 0.01 PUBLIC SAFETY 0,30 0.16 0.15 0.13 (0.02) -10.0% SENIOR HOUSING 0.18 0.05 0.09 0.08 (0.01) -14.0% GO REFUNDING 0.22 0.22 0.19- (0.03) -14.0% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS TOTAL 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.40 (0.06) -12.7% TOTAL 3.05 3.23 3.08 3.22 0.14 4.4% The 1996 general fund tax levy rate is 2.81417.The formula for calculating the levy rate is limited to 106% of the last three years' highest regular levy plus annexations at the current year's rate and new construction at the previous year's rate. The formula excludes omitted assessments(they are taxed at the rate in effect for the year that they should have been included), and administrative adjustments. PRPTAXB.WQ 1 07-Dec-95 REGULAR PROPERTY LEVY CALCULATION 106%LIMITATION CALCULATION(RCW 84.55.010) NIAXIMUM AVAILABLE WITH CERTIFIED ASSESSED VALUATION Certified Assessed Valuation : 3,923,361,319 Assessed Valuation Base (Calculated) 85,023,640 New Construction added 120,018,471 Annexations 4,128,403,430 Total Assessed Valuation - 10,385,879 Last year's in lieu of Highest of three most recent years due to library 1.06 x 1.06 11,009,032 106%Levy 85,023,640 Local new construction 0 +State Public Service New Construction 85,023,640 =Total New Construction 2.62 x Prior year levy rate( if projecting 96,then 95's rate) 222,544 =New Construction Levy 11,009,032 1.06 Levy 222,544 +New Construction Levy (5,857) -Omitted Assessment Levy 11,225,719 =Levy Ceiling(Less annexations and omitted assessments) 4,008,384,959 Regular levy assessed value less annexations 2.80056 =New Year Levy rate 120,018,471 Annexation assessed value 2.801 x New Year levy rate 336,119 =Annexation Levy 5,857 +Omitted assessment levy 11,225,719 +Levy Ceiling(Less annexations and omitteds) 11,567,695 =Maximum New Year Levy based on 106%limit 50,346 +Refund Fund 11,618,041 =Maximum New Year Levy based on 106% limit+refund fund. STATUTORY LEVY CALCULATION 4,128,403,430 Assessed value (excluding omits) 3.100 X maximum statutory rate 12,798,051 =Maximum 1995 levy(Excluding Omitted Assessment Levy) 0 +Omitted Assessment Levy 12,798,051 =Maximum 1995 Levy based on Statutory Levy 11,618,041 Maximum Regular 1995 levy(the lesser of the two limits) 2.81417 Rate/thousand valuation 3 $�„�,y Scott Noble Department of Asesmenu Assessor King comfy AAmu imrsb n B;4 500 P«rth Avmw,Room 709 &*an*WA 93104-2334 (2W 2953795 PAX 29&05.95 C�, 11 El n . VALUATJQN ION I, Scott Noble, King County Assessor, pursuant to the duty imposed upon me by RCW 84.48.130, certify that the assessed.valuation of all the taxable property situated within the boundaries of the City of Kent for the assessment year 1995 and tax year 1996, is $4,128,403,430 and is recorded as such in the King County Assessment Roll. The above valuation is based upon the values established and certified in the 1995 assessment year and certified to the King County Board of Equalization on July 14, 1995 pursuant to RCW 84.40.320. This valuation includes $85,023,640 which is the value of new construction and improvements to property in 1995, plus any increase in the value of state-assessed property included in the certificate of values from the Washington State Department of Revenue received November 13, 1995_ The value herein certified to you has been adjusted to exclude $10,868,666, which is exempt from taxation pursuant to RCW 84.56.381, and does not include ail changes that may be ordered by the King County Board of Equalization, which is now in session and will remain so for an undetermined period of time. Dated this 30th day of November, 1995. Scott Noble, King unty Assessor out 1, Boat r Fax Note 7671 From t To Co CaDOPL Phone Y `4 Ptah� Fi+x A FflY 1 I9. a Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: 1996 BUDGET AMENDMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On November 7, 1995, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3244 for the 1996 budget. Since that time, additional information has been received from King County on property tax amount which adds $95,242 in additional property tax. The proposed budget amendment adds $95,242 in Property Tax, provides $20, 000 for a police boat for the Lake Meridian Annexation and adds the balance of $75, 242 to the General Fund balance. �n Department i c mat»i l� --� tt -a j -�-$ t,}--.• i 3 . EXHIBITS: ordinance and exhibits 1 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $95 242 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1996 Pro a Tax 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ! __ // y� moves,� Councilmember �' seconds adoption of Ordinance No. f/ amending the 1996 budget to include the additional $95, 242 from property tax revenue with $20, 000 of this amount to be used for a police boat for Lake Meridian with the remainder of $75, 242 to be added to General Fund balance. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Y Council Agenda Item No. do" A CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON . 1996 BUDGET AMENDMENT Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUND 41,416, 657 41,599,451 (18-,794) 2,629,053 2,447,259 95,242 95,242 95,242 Property Tax 20,0007 Marine Patrol Boat 20,000 (20,000) (_ ti 41,511, 899 41,618,451 (106, 552) 2,629,053 2,522, 501 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,212,605 4,441,918 (229,313) 499,461 270, 148 Youth/Teen Programs 429,080 484,123 (55,043) 128,260 73,217 Capital Improvement 4,157, 721 4,565,000 (407,279) 938,682 531,403 Criminal Justice 1,395,633 1,424, 595 (28, 962) 300,316 271,354 _ Environmental Mitigation 421,893 486,910 (65,017) 259,318 194,301 Community Block Grant 436, 550 436,550 Other Operating Projects 133, 858 142,694 (8, 836) 3, 836 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1,568,715 1,835,373 (166, 658) 216,658 50,000 Voted Councilmanic 2,138,175 2,138,175 Special Assessment 2,485,423 3,195,477 (710,054) 2,690,535 1, 980,481 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 3,105,793 3,105,793 Parks Projects 1,258,410 1,263,658 (5,248) (5,248) Other Projects 953,735 1,128,518 (174,783) 207, 783 33,000 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 7,241,037 7,622,488 (381,451) 3, 345,264 2,963, 833 -- Sewerage 16, 136, 502 15, 056,411 1, 080, 091 5,439, 832 6,5=9, 923 Golf Complex 3,078,122 2,734,392 343,730 301, 551 645,281 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 1,869, 849 1,791, 119 78,730 1,983,076 2,061,806 Central Services 4,605,318 4, 584, 904 20,414 25, 540 45, 954 Fire Equipment 458,693 1,447,584 (988, 891) 1, 171,338 182,447 Insurance 4, 879,167 5,380,464 (501,297) 3,368,034 2,866, 737 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 246,000 199,396 46,604 2,259,711 2,306,315 Economic Development Corp 19,496 36, 995 (17,499) 34, 939 17,440 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 102,843, 674 105,120,988 (2,2"17,314) 25, 808,207 23,530, 893 LESS: Internal Service Funds 6,503,712 6, 503,712 Other Transfers 10,149,700 10,149,700 -- TOTAL BUDGET 86,190,262 88,467, 576 (2,277,314) 25, 808,207 23,530, 993 PROPERTY TAX AMENDMENT USES FOR FULL AMOUNT LEVIED Adopted Budget 11,522,799 Adjustments for: Annexation levy, based on higher levy rate due to 39,039 lower than expected assessed valuation. Omitted assessments levy 5,857 Refund fund levy 50,346 Adjusted Levy Request -11,618,041 Adjusted Levy Request 11,618,041 Less adopted budget 11,522,799 ------------------ Additional revenues available 95,242 Proposed Uses Boat For Marine Patrol 20,000 Increase to Fund Balance 75,242 ----------------- Total Proposed Uses 95,242 prpopts 07-Dec-95 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, relating to budgets and finance and amending the 1996 Fiscal Year Budget as adopted pursuant t.o Ordinance No . 3244 . WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Kent adopted -:he final 1996 Fiscal Year Budget pursuant to Ordinance No. 3244 on November 7., 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Budget as adopted contained estimated figures for the City ' s property tax levy for 1996 ; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the City Council ' s adoption of ttie 1996 Fiscal Year Budget , King County submitted its certification of its assessed valuation to the City of Kent ; and WHEREAS, the County' s certification of assessed ._luation is much lower than anticipated resulting in the City � ,uncil ' s desire to make amendments to the 1996 Fiscal Year 7-rudget ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : 1996 Fiscal Year Budget Section 1 . Budget Amended. The final 1996 Fiscal Year Budget , as adopted by the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No . 3244 , is hereby amended by adjusting the General Fund revenues and expenditures and by making related adjustments as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference . Section 2. Severability- If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . . Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (3) days from and after its publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 1996 Fiscal Year Budget APPROVED AS TO FORM : ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 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 Budget2.ord 3 1995 Budget CITY OF RENT, WASHINGTON 1996 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT BUDGET ORDINANCE EXHIBIT Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending _n Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUND 41,511,899 41,618,451 (106, 552) 2,629, 053 2,522,501 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 499,461 270,148 Street 4,212,605 4,441, 918 (229,313) 64,123 (55, 043) 126,250 73,217 Youth/Teen Programs 429,080 4 Capital Improvement 4,137,721 4,565,000 (407,279) 938,682 531,403 Criminal Justice 1 ,395,633 1,424,595 (28, 962) 300,316 271,354 Environmental Mitigation 421, 893 486,910 (65,017) 259,318 194,301 Community Block Grant 436, 550 436,550 Other Operating Projects 133, 858 142,694 (8,836) 8, 835 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1,668, 715 1,835,373 (166,658) 216,658 50,000 Voted Councilmanic 2,136,175 2,138,175 Special Assessment 2,485,423 3,195,477 (710,054) 2,690, 535 1,980,481 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 3,105,793 3,105,793 Parks Projects 1,258,410 1,263,658 (5,248) (5,249) Other Projects 953,735 1,128,518 (174,783) 207,783 33,000 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS 7,241, 037 7,622,488 (381,451) 3,345,284 2,963,833 Water 091 5,439,832 6,519, 923 Sewerage 16,136,502 15,056,411 1,080, Golf Complex 3,076,122 2,734,392 343,730 301,551 645,281 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 1, 869, 849 1,791,119 78,730 1,983,076 2,061, 806 Equipment Rental Central Services 4,605,318 4,584, 904 20,414 25,540 45,954 Fire Equipment 458,693 1,447,584 (988,691) 1,171,338 182,447 Insurance 4,879, 167 5,3B0,464 (501,297) 3,368,034 2, 866,737 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 246, 000 199,396 46,604 2,259,711 2,306,315 19,496 36,995 (17,499) 34, 939 17,440 Economic Development Corp TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 102, 843,674 105,120,986 (2,277,314) 25,808,207 23,530,893 LESS: Internal Service Funds 6,503,712 6,503,712 Other Transfers 10,149,700 10,149,700 TOTAL BUDGET 86,190,262 88,4'07,576 (2,277,314) 25,808,207 23,530,893 EXHIBIT CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 1996 BUDGET AMENDMENT Inc (Dec) 9eainnina Ending _n Fund Fund _Fu n Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERAII4ENTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUND 411416, 657 41, 598,451 (18_,794) 2,629, 053 2,447,259 Property Tax 95, 242 95, 242 95, 242 Marine Patrol Boat 20, 000 (20,000) (20, 000) 4 511, 899 41,618,451 ('_C6, 552) 2, 629, 053 2, 522, 501 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,212, 605 4,441, 918 (229,313) 499,461 27C, 148 Youth/Teen Programs 429, 080 484, 123 (55,043) 128, 260 73,2i7 Capital Improvement 4 , 157, 721 4, 565, 000 (407,279) 938, 682 53'_,403 ,424, 59E (28, 962) 300,316 27' 354 Criminal Justice 1, .,z,4 5, 53..z 1_ ' Environmental Mitigation 421, 893 486, 91C (65,017) 259, 318 Community Block Grant 436, 550 436, 550 Other Operating Projects 133, 85E 142, 694 (8, 836) 8, 636 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 1,668, 715 1, 835,373 (166,658) 216, 658 50, 000 Councilmanic 2, 138, 175 2, 138, 175 Special Assessment 2,465,423 3, 195,477 (%10, 054) 2, 690, 535 1,98C,481 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 3, 105, 793 3,105,793 Parks Projects -,258,410 1,263, 658 (5, 248) (5, 000 Other Projects 953, 735 1, 128, 518 (174,783) 207,783 '-'3, 000 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 7,241, 037 7,622,488 (381,451) 3,345,284 2,963, 833 Sewerage 16, 136,5C2 15,056,411 1,080,091 5,439, 832 6,519, 923 Golf Complex 3, 078, 122 2, 734,392 343,730 301,551 645, 281 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS - Equipment Rental 1, 869,849 1,791, 1L° 70,414 1, 925, 540 2, 061, 806 Central Services 4,605,318 4, 584, 904 20,414 25, 540 82, 954 Fire Equipment 458, 693 1,447,584 (988, 891) 1, 171,338 182, 447 Insurance 4, 879, 167 5,380,464 (501, 297) 3, 368, 034 2, 666, 737 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 246, 000 199,396 46,604 2,259,711 2,306, 315 Economic Development Corp 19,496 36, 995 (17,499) 34 , 939 17,440 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 102, 643 ,674 105,120, 988 (2,277,314) 25, 808,207 23,530, 893 LESS : Internal Service Funds 6, 503,712 6, 503, 712 Other Transfers 10, 149,70C 10, 149, 700 TOTAL BUDGET 86, 190, 262 88,467, 575 (2,277,314) 25, 808,207 23,530,893 EXHIBIT PROPERTY TAX AMENDMENT USES FOR FULL AMOUNT LEVIED Adopted Budget 11,522,799 Adjustments for Annexation levy, based on higher levy rate due to 39,039 lower than expected assessed valuation. Omitted assessments levy 5,857 Refund fund levy 50,346 Adjusted Levy Request 11,618_041 Adjusted Levy Request 11,618,041 Less adopted budget 11,522,799 Additional revenues available 95,242 Proposed Uses Boat For Marine Patrol 20,000 Increase to Fund Balance 75,242 ------------------ Total Proposed Uses 95,242 EXHIBIT.Q prpopts 07-Dec-95 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: PUBLIC DEFENDER'S CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City seeks proposals for public defense contracts every other year and enters into a one-year contract with the successful applicant. The parties sub- sequently negotiate a second year extension. Last year the City sought proposals for public defense services and awarded the contract to Stewart and Goss. The contract approved by the City Council allowed administration to extend the contract for one additional term under the same terms and conditions. As a result of the annexation and the increasing caseload at the Kent Municipal Court, the contract had to be renegotiated. Staff is asking for authorization for the Mayor to enter into a new contract for a one-year term in substantially the same form as the proposed agreement. 3 . EXHIBITS: Contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: A� 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �V Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize the'Mayor to enter into a contract for public defense services in substantially the same form as the proposed agreement. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. KVIYk AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF KENT, Washington, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" , and N. SCOTT STEWART and CLARK C. GOSS, hereinafter referred to as "Attorney" . In consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows : 1 . Scope of Services . The Attorney agrees to provide public defender services for indigent criminal defendants charged with criminal violations of Kent City ordinances (KCC Titles 8 -.. and 9) , as set forth in this Agreement . All indigent criminal defendants charged under ordinances of the City who qualify for appointed counsel or are appointed from the bench shall be referred to the Attorney. The Attorney shall enter a notice of appearance and provide legal representation for each of these defendants from the time of receiving notice or order of appointment through arraignment , if appropriate, pretrial hearings, trial and sentencing, review hearings as required by the judge, revocation hearings, and appeals . The Attorney shall ensure that a minimum of two (2) defense counsel are present at routine pre-trial calendars, jury status calendars, and bench trial calendars, whenever the court ' s caseload necessitates two (2) attorneys to effectively and efficiently manage the calendar, unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto . The parties agree that this staffing requirement shall not apply during such times that the Kent Municipal Court 1 operates more than one court room simultaneously, in which case, staff shall be allocated to the courts to provide the most efficient management of court calendars . Attorney will provide the required services during the transition from Aukeen District Court to Kent ' s municipal court and provide defense counsel necessary to cover double set court calendars as they arise in the respective courts . 2 . Defendant ' s Access to Attorney. The parties agree that client access to Attorney prior to appearance in court is paramount . Qualifying criminal defendants shall be provided access to the Attorney by means of a toll-free local from Kent telephone number made available by the Attorney. Attorney currently maintains offices at 15 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, and will , at all times during the term of this agreement, maintain an office at such location or in South King County at such location as to facilitate client access for purposes of providing services required herein. Additionally, Attorney agrees to provide conference space within the City of Kent, and be available to said defendants at that location as necessary to consult with client . The Attorney shall see all in- custody clients at the Kent Corrections facilities within 48 hours of notification of appointment, excluding weekends and holidays, and will return to said facilities to consult with client as necessary. The Attorney shall see all in-custody clients at the King County Jail within a reasonable period of time following notice of appointment and further shall see such clients in follow-up meetings as is necessary. 3 . Applicant Screening. Determinations of indigency for purposes of eligibility for appointed counsel under this contract 2 shall be determined by an independent screening process established by the City, and by direct appointments from the bench. Such appointment shall be in accordance with State law. Should the Attorney determine a defendant is not eligible for assigned counsel prior to the establishment of the attorney/client relationship, the Attorney shall promptly advise the City to reconsider the eligibility of that defendant . The City' s determination of indigency shall be final and binding upon Attorney. 4 . 24-Hour Telephone Access . The Attorney shall provide to the City Police Department the telephone number or numbers at which an attorney can be reached twenty-four hours each day for "critical stage" advice to defendants during the course of police investigations and/or arrest . Such telephone numbers shall be serviced by a telephone paging device or other similar monitoring method so that direct contact can be made with an attorney at any time of the day or night, seven days a week. S . Associated Counsel . Any counsel associated with or employed by the Attorney shall have the authority to perform the services called for herein, and the Attorney may employ and/or associate counsel to assist him at the Attorney' s expense . The Attorney and all counsel employed br associated pursuant to this section shall be admitted to the practice of law in the State of Washington and be in good standing as such, pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. The Attorney shall be responsible for performance of -- this Agreement, notwithstanding that other counsel may be employed or associated by the Attorney to perform services hereunder. The Attorney shall actively supervise associated and 3 employed counsel throughout the term of this Agreement, and any renewals hereof, to ensure that all cases are promptly and effectively handled from the time of appointment until conclusion of the Attorney' s representation of the client . The Attorney shall notify the City of any proposed association or employment of counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein, and shall include in such notification information regarding the background, education, training, experience and qualifications of such counsel and any additional training and supervision that is proposed to be provided to such associated or employed counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein. The Attorney shall be responsible for providing all such training and/or supervision at the Attorney' s sole cost and expense . No legal intern shall perform the services called for herein without the prior approval of the City. Sufficient counsel shall be provided to represent defendants during vacation, illnesses and settings in more than one courtroom. 6 . Term of this Agreement . (a) This agreement shall commence on the ist day of January, 1996 and shall be in force and effect through December 31, 1996 , unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof . (b) This agreement may be extended for one additional one year term upon the same terms and conditions hereof only by mutual agreement of City Administration and Attorney. 7 . Proof of Professional Liability Insurance . During the term of this agreement and any extension thereof, the Attorney shall secure and maintain a policy of comprehensive professional 4 liability insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Washington. Said policy shall (a) provide protection and indemnification against any and all claims arising out of the Attorney' s representation pursuant to this agreement; and (b) have policy limits not less than One Million Dollars ($1, 000 , 000 . 00) . 8 . Indemnification . The Attorney shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials , officers and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever arising out of performance of the Attorney' s obligations pursuant to the Agreement , including but not limited to claims arising out of errors or omissions of the Attorney and/or by reason of accident , injury or death caused to persons or property of any kind occurring, except to the extent they are caused by the fault or neglect of the City. 9 . Compensation . \ a. Payment for Services : The City shall pay the Attorney for services rendered under this Agreement as follows : The City of Kent shall provide to Attorney for services rendered under this contract the sum of One Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($186 , 000 . 00) for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 to be paid at the rate of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($15 , 500 . 00) per month. Should Attorney be appointed more than 175 cases per month during any three (3 ) consecutive months, Attorney shall receive additional compensation of Ninety Dollars ($90 . 00) for each such appointment during said 3 month period. Attorney shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set 5 forth in this Agreement, the Attorney' s compensation hereunder shall be prorated based upon the number of months and portions of months which have elapsed between the commencement of the year and the effective date of termination. b. Appeals : The Attorney shall handle appeals taken by indigent defendants, regardless of whether Attorney represented said defendant at trial . This service is to be included within the "scope of services" described in Section 1 of this contract and the "compensation" provided for in paragraph 9 (a) above . C . Miscellaneous Costs : The City agrees to reimburse the Attorney for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. d. Billing: The Attorney shall bill the City, in care of the City Attorney' s Office, on the first day of the month, or the first work day thereafter: i . for the monthly installment set forth in subsection 9 . a . above; ii . for all costs incurred by the Attorney under subparagraph 9 .c . , above; for the previous month or months . The City shall make payments on or before the 20th day of the month following the month for which services were rendered with the first payment due February 20 , 1996 ; provided, that any billing not received by the City Attorney' s Office on or before the first working day of the month shall not be due and payable until the next City billing period. At the end of every third month during the term of this Agreement , Attorney shall provide the City a full accounting of all cases assigned and all in-court 6 appointments made during that three month period, segregated for each month. 10 . Discovery Provided. The City shall provide Attorney one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case . Such materials shall include, where relevant and requested, a copy of the abstract of the defendants driving record. 11 . No Assignments or Subcontracts . No assignment or transfer of this Agreement nor of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties , without prior written consent . _.. 11 . Attorney Conflict . In the event the representation of a defendant hereunder raises a conflict of interest such that the Attorney cannot represent the defendant, said defendant shall be promptly referred back to the City for further assignment . 13 . Termination. a . For Cause : City or Attorney may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party fails to perform its obligations as described in this Agreement and such failure has not been corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. b. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties : Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party' s reasonable control such as but not limited to acts of nature; war or warlike operations ; civil 7 commotion; riot ; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage ; or superior governmental regulation or control . Notice of termination pursuant to this subparagraph b . shall be given by the party terminating this Agreement to the other not less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. C . Without Cause : Either party for necessary budgetary reasons may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of any calendar year during the term of the Agreement . 14 . Amendments . No modification or amendment of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto . 15 . General Administration and Management - Reports . The City Attorney of the City of Kent shall have primary responsibility for the City under this Agreement, and shall carry out all functions in connection with this Agreement . All requests for compensation to the City under this Agreement shall be reviewed for final approval by the City Attorney. The Attorney shall submit quarterly reports to the City of the number of separate cases handled by the Attornev, and other related information on the cases handled as requested by the City. Such reports shall be submitted to the City within ten (10) calendar days from the end of the quarter . 16 . Status of Attorney. This agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Attorney as an independent 8 contractor and Attorney will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose . The Attorney and/or its subcontractors) shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker' s compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Attorney and its officers , agents, and employees and the costs of all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 17 . Case Load Limits . The Attorney shall establish case load limits for attorneys assigned to perform services under this Agreement that ensure effective representation of each and every client . 18 . Compliance with Laws . The Attorney shall be in compliance with applicable state, federal and city laws and regulations . 19 . Additional Services . The Attorney may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original Scope of Services as defined in Section 1 of this Agreement . Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. 20 . Notices . All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Kent Attornev Mayor Stewart and Goss, P. S . City of Kent 15 South Grady Way #600 220 4th Avenue South Renton, Washington 98051 Kent , Washington 98032 9 21 . Entire Agreement . This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties and may not be enlarged, modified or altered except in writings signed by the parties and endorsed herein. 22 . Duplicate Originals . This agreement is executed in duplicate originals . CITY OF KENT ATTORNEY Jim White, Mayor N. Scott Stewart Dated: Dated: C . Chip Goss Dated: ATTEST : Brenda Jacober, City Clerk 10 Approved As to Form: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney City of Kent pdcontract.ral 11 I' Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: STREET UTILITY REPEAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committ has recommended adoption of an ordinance, prepared y the City Attorney, which repeals the existing Street ility Ordinance. Brent McFall will give a brief presentation o Council on this issue. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public rks Committee (Committee, StafZRSONNEL miner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE RE /IRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCI ACTION: Councilme er moves, Councilmember seconds adoptio of Ordinance No. which repeals the existing Stree tility Ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4J Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which-is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the growth Management Act. He noted that.the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires aties to impose the street utility was unconstitutional (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "_hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about $1.4 Million Dollars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrency as required by GMA which means eve then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the Citv, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of service. McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are available. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax increase at a revenue neutral ievel and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. 2 It is basically paid by the same people who pays the street utility fee now; residences and businesses. It is paid in roughly the same ratio. McFall said that what we can't tell you is that for each individual customer that they will see no impact up or down because the utility tax is dependent upon usage. McFall said that this option was the recommendation of the Mayor's Street Utility Task Force and it is the recommendation of the Mayor to proceed this way in order to fund the corridor projects, which allows ius to have concurrency, which allows continued development of the City. Further, if that option is taken, it needs to be done in conjunction with each action in conjunction with the other. And also, that the funds be dedicated specifically for that purpose. McFall stated another option is a second quarter percent real estate-excise tax which is collected at the time of sale of property; that's an extremely volatile revenue source in that it depends on real estate transactions and generates approximately $570,000. He noted that it's not a reliable source of revenue and by itself does not replace the S 1.4 million. The Business License option is something that Renton did a number of years - they charge $55 per FTE annually as the business license fee. In order to replace the S 1.4 million, we would have to add $36 per FFE per year on top of our existing business license fee. The disadvantage of this is, it shifts the entire cost to replace the street utility revenue to business. Another option is B&_O Tax. This would have significant administrative overhead costs to collect the Bs:O tax. Another option - the Property Tax Lid lift. This would require about $.35 per thousand of assessed value increase in property tax rates and subject to voter approval. The final option is Transportation Benefit District - also subject to referendum which would again be about 5.35 per thousand of property tax increase. - McFall stated that the Mayor's Task Force felt that the only responsible option was to provide funds to construct the corridors, which have a significant impact on the future of the city-and to do it in the form of a utility tali increase, earmarked specifically for the corridor projects and transportation projects, and done concurrently with the repeal of the street utility. We would then show that it truly was a replacement revenue not a new increase in fees. Mayor White noted that the longer this goes on, the greater the risk of our being challenged on the utility. Therefore, this needs to be done in a timely manner as soon as Council is ready to act on it. The Mayor stated that he has made a recommendation and if Council has some other recommendation, we would be happy to listen. He noted that we have invested a tremendous amount of City funds in acquiring property, 3 condemnation procedures, etc. Committee recommended that the City Attorney prepare the appropriate Orciici n repealing the existing Street Utility fee. Committee recommended authorization for the City Attorney to prepare the neces it ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility, that altcrn;_te being a 1% increase in the Utility Tax; earmarked specifically for street purpose, . : : would be a replacement of the Street Utility and, that those ordinances be ad: Lce the next full Council on December 12th. 100TH AVENUE EXTENSION - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Committee recommended that the 100th Avenue Extension meeting be held at 17 ,r r a Elementary School on Thursday, December 14th at 5:00 P.M Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m. 4 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Street Utility UUU As a result of the State Supreme Court's decision on Seattle's street utility, the enclosed memorandum explains in detail a course of action as proposed by the Mayor to substitute an alternate revenue source for our street utility in order to continue development under the city's transportation plan. ACTION: As recommended by the Mayor, authorization for the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility and to adopt those ordinances at the next full Council on December 12th. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Jim Whit SUBJECT: Street Utility DATE: November 16, 1995 As you know, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional the residential element of Seattle's street utility. Since Seattle's utility is based upon the same statute as our own, this calls into question the legality of Kent's street utility. On advice of staff, AWC and others. I have caused this matter to be investigated, and am proposing a course of action to substitute an alternate revenue source for our street utility in order to continue development under the city's transportation plan. The balance of the memorandum will outline the issue and the proposed action. I stand ready to work with Council to resolve this potentially serious issue. BACKGROUND The City of Kent adopted its street utility in 1992, and dedicated the revenue to the construction of the 196th and 272nd corridors. We are one of fourteen cities in the state to adopt a street utility- Funds have been expended in right of way acquisition, design, environmental review and the like. Additionally, funds have been accumulating to pay for construction. We now generate approximately S 1.4 million from the utility annually. COVELL v. SEATTLE The Seattle case found the residential portion of the street utility to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court determined that the utility fee was, in fact, a property tax. As such, it was not based upon property value, and therefore, invalid. The court did not rule on the commercial fee collected by Seattle, but the arguments used in the lawsuit invalidating the residential portion of the utility would appear to apply to the commercial component. The City Attorney advises that Kent should repeal its street utility, both residential and commercial,as soon as possible to avoid a sinular lawsuit being filed against us. IMPACTS OF REPEAL If the street utility is repealed without replacement revenue, the corridors cannot be built. The corridors are THE major component of our transportation plan, and are necessary to meet the level of service called for in the transportation plan. They are also necessary to meet the concurrency requirement for transportation required by the Growth Management Act- If we do not build the corridors, we have two choices- First, we can allow the level of service to deteriorate until we no longer have concurrency with our transportation plan at which point we can issue NO MORE BUILDING PERMITS! Development in the city stops. Our second choice is to revise downward the level of service called for in the transportation plan. This would, in my opinion, result in an unacceptable level of service. Ultimately, this decision would also effect the economic viability of the city due to the inability of business and residents to travel through the city at acceptable service levels. Both of these impacts are unacceptable. Therefore, we must find a replacement revenue source. REPLACEMENT-REVENUE SOURCt On November 15, I called together a group of business people to review this situation and to give me their advice. This group was composed of Jerry Schneider, homebuilder; Rodger Anderson, REALTORS Association; Elizabeth Warman, Boeing; Roy Moore, VATA; Brad Bell, CPA; Rod Saalfeld, Chamber of Commerce; and Barbara Ivanov, Chamber of Commerce. The group reviewed the history of the street utility and the impacts of repeal. They determined that the revenue MUST be replaced. Further, the group reviewed the options that had been identified by staff as replacement sources (see attachments), and developed a recommendation as the best source of replacement funds. The group's recommendation, with which I concur, is to repeal the street utility and replace the revenue with a 1% in increase in the utility tax. This would raise our rate to 4.8% on all utilities except garbage which would be at 7.8%. In all cases we would remain lower than the average utility tax charged by cities in the State of Washington. A 1%utility tax would generate approximately$1.4 million which would exactly replace the street utility revenue. Therefore, such a utility tax increase would be revenue neutral with the street utility which would be repealed. Moreover, a utility tax has the advantage of being spread across both residential and commercial users, also mirroring the street utility. Although individual properties would vary, most properties would probably see their utility bills increase as a result of the utility tax in approximately the same amount that their bills would decrease from repeal of the street utility. Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that this is replacement of existing fees, and is not an additional revenue. In my opinion, this is the only responsible action in light of the consequences of taking no action, or of not replacing the street utility revenue. ACTION REQUIRED I have directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement this recommendation, and will ask for your action as soon as possible, probably December 12. 1 am prepared to discuss this matter further with you, and to answer any questions you may have. _ attachments cc: Brent McFall, May Miller Roger Lubovich, Don Wickstrom AGENDA STREET UTILITY TASK FORCE November 15, 1995 ♦ Welcome and Introductions - Mayor Jim White ♦ History of Street Utility and Corridor Projects- Public Works Director Don Wickstrom ♦ Covell v. Seattle; Impact on Kent- City Attorney Roger Lubovich ♦ Growth Management, Transportation Plan& Concurrency - Don Wickstrom ♦ Options -Director of Operations Brent McFall & Finance Director May Miller 1) Leave Street Utility in Place - Seek Legislative Remedy 2) Repeal Street Utility -No Replacement.Revenue 3) Repeal Street Utility - Lower GNIA Service Level 4) Repeal Street Utility and Substitute Replacement Revenue a) Utility Tax b) Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET) c) Business License Fee d) B & O Tax e) Voter Approved Property Tax Lid Lift f) Transportation Benefit District ♦ Discussion- Mayor Jim White STREET UTILITY FUNDING OPTIONS - 1996 ESTIMATES $Produced Comments 1. Leave Street Utility in place 1,451,449 Seek Legislative remedy 2. Repeal Utility without replacement revenues 0 Non concurrency with Comprehensive Plan 3. Repeat Utility without replacement revenues 0 Lower GMA Service level 4. Repeal Utility and substitute replacement revenue A. 1%increase in Utility Tax Electric 634 203 Easy implementation Gas 140,763 Consistent revenue flows Telephone 345,274 Not revenue neutral for individual customers Garbage 89,000 2 months lag Water 60,302 Meridian start up Sewer 114,885 Drainage 45,275 1,429,702 B. Second 114% Real Estate Excise tax 569,144 Only requires a Council vote Vanes, dependent on property sales. Alone is not sufficient to replace all revenues lost. C. Business license-add head count portion Requires ordinance change @$35.98 yearly per FTE X 40,340 1,323,152 Increases$13.18 per year per employee Business picks up residential portion. OR @$22.80 yearly per FTE X 40,340 919,752 No additional ongoing burden to business Combined with second 1/4 REST. 1,488,896 If combined with Real estate excise would replace all Street Utility tax revenues. D. City B&O tax @.036%(36 cents/$1000) 1,451,449 + . May deter new businesses from coming to Kent Collection&adminis=bcn would be less cost effective, new tax would require new systems&staff to implement requiring greater total collections Actual rates necessary will be very difficult to determine accurately. estimates range from .017% to 060% E. Property tax Lid Lift @.3451$1000 valuation 1,453,585 Requires voter approval Assumes$4,213,288,766 assessed valuation. Net considered very likely to succeed. F. Transportation Benefit District 1,453,585 Requires majority vote of Council subject to referendum @.3451$1000 valuation Impact an other junior taxing distncts undetermined. 1 CCC TAXALT3.W81 14Nov-95 ,sIt OF DENT ,'=,ITY TAX CATA :996 ESTIMATED 3.50§ 0.30% ].002 .... 140 170 TOTAL JTILITY TAX: 001 L'] ______________________________________________________________________ ELECTRIC 2,219,709 /90,261 2,409,970 "'- GAS 492,671 42,229 534,900 . TELEPHONE 1,208,460 103,582 1,312,042 GARBAGE 311,501 26,700 267j001 605,202 WATER 211,057 18,091 229,148 SEWER 402,096 34,466 436,561 DRAINAGE 158,461 13,592 172,043 _________________________________________________ TOTAL UTIL TAX 5,003,955 0 . 428,910 267,001 5,699,366 1996 ESTIMATED 4.50% 0.20: . 3.007 UTILITY TAX: 001 113 140 _70 =0-:,L ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC - 2,853,912 190.25_ 3,044,'73 GAS 633,434 42,229 675,563 7"ZE?HONE 1,553,734 103,532 _,657,316 GARBAGE 400,501 26,700 267,001 694,2C2 NATE'R 271,359 13.091 2691450 SEWER 516,981 34,465 551.446 DRAINAGE 203,736 13.562 7,116 _________________________________________________ TOTAL L'TIL TAX 6,433,656 0 428,9_C 267,OC1 7,129,So7 DIFFERENCE 1,429,701 0 (0) 0 1.429,707 Sample Utility Tax Increase Comparison Effect on Residential Consumers Monthly Annual 1% additional Billing Billing Utility tax Electric/Naturai Gas 85.00 1,020.00 10.20 Phone �0.00 600.00 6.00 Garbage 15.00 180.00 1.80 Water 20.00 240.00 2.40 Sewer 25.00 300.00 3.00 Drainage 4.38 52.56 0.53 199.38 2,392.56 23.93 Street Utility @ $1.90 / month (22.80) Net Effect To Residential Consumers 1.13 4.9% 3 CCC TAXALTIW81 14-Nov-95 Date : April 19 , 1594 To : May Mill-er, finance DiYe tc_ =id aud'_tC- From: aim Huntington C__-❑a , - -- S�u}J]ect : Additional -/a percenc� real Estate e;{C_se _=X. Durincr the Q02 1 egiS!at7 SESSicn s-,,- ant�al amendments wer-_ made tc the Revised Code of Wasn_ncccn mak-4 -q a al_Gb!e Cerra': -i de_r -he Cr�wt_n_ Manaaement cz. an a=__7 _LCP_ai cities planninc under of one percent real estate exc-se _ {. ---- _ { _ - -crew c Simple ma]Crity Vote C t E CCL^_C1r. -S must Ce 'sec. -or .financing cacital nrojEcts scec=-_Ec _-- G c= -- __ =--_-__ clan element o= a comnre�e--nsi-re The monies Coll=Cted can 'e used Construction, recons-c=cz-Gr:, rezair, _etlacement , ... or Lmorovement C- streets 'r'CaCS , _c_:-_wa`_JS , road ligntinc sV_ Sl.ems, - - systems , SLCrm and Sanit ar'i sc°.ler S"•JStE s , ___� _c__'-___ Constr ,ct_Cr , _eCCrSt-�Ct_Cn, 'mprcvement CL par.'K . 1n L993 $a64 , 909 was col-iected = C= -__- estate excise tax cL'rrentiy a'L] ::cr=Ze^. percent would add an acid-4::na, S 00 , 000 =r tnE __ 94 cLcce= . _chow:nq is the status c_ lcca= Cit additional— L/c -cer-cent real estate eXC-se ta:{:. - CITY `__{ Auburn Renton 'e s `T`ukw i la ETC .._. Normandy Pal":{ ^1C =assEr' Des Moines ... SeaTaC �iC Mercer Island K_r:'{land `dc =ederal Way -ttaC:1'`d -Cr your COn'i==_"'C= _ -_m„j _ C.,_.... _=nCe _-C C,;,- �S Muri pal =...Se.= _ 4 Potential B&.O tax rate estimates based on various ratios Estimate based on ratio of statewide Retail taxable to 8&O taxable sales. Utility tax to replace : 1,451,449 Kent 1996 sales tax 1a,I197,947 Effective net rate to Kent 0.8415°�0 Projected Kent total retail sales taxable 1,710.985,91 8 Kent's estimated share of state 0&O tax: Projected Kent total retail sales taxable 10,985.938 2.8Z'o Statewide Income subject to retail sates tax (94) 60.586•=°G•94C Kent's share of state's H&O sales = 294,502,O0O,OCC X 2_3-2doo = C15.87 .ECG �G, 1,19 n77 _ — Target Revenue )-0 0 _z umaie Kent's share of state's 6&O safes 8, 1c.87T,-1 0 Note that the City probably does not have the same ratio or taxable sates as the State. , higner ratio of P2O :axacte sat would reduce the necessary rate to acccmctish funding replacement Estimate based an ratio of assessed valuation Kent Assessed Valuation (94) 3,911.C41,170 c9`5 State Assessed Valuation (94) 287,885,C00.000 Kents share of state's B&O sales = 294,502.CCO.00G2 CC.935.95Z Target Revenue 1.451.aG9 0.0l-6110 Esamatee necessary rate Kent's share of state's S&O sales a.000.905.a52 Estimate based on ratio of population Kent's Pepuiaticn a-1-95 State Pocuiation 41A.9C0 Kent's share of smte's B&O sales = =9a,=02.000,000 X Target Revenue a51,449 0.060% Estimated necessary rate Kent's share of state's 0&O sales 2.4C6,041,A74 r D CCC TAXALT.W91 14-Nov-95 t^DOd +�YaIIlatfT CITY OF BELLEVUE Tax Survey- Summary' March 1995 1994 Tetal Regular Average Average Sales Tax Cities Population Property Property B & O Utility City Surveyed: (411194) Tax Tax Tax Tax Porrc^ Auburn 34,970 53.29 $2.70 4.50% 1.00/u Bellevue 99,140 $2.17 $1.82 0.150% 4.75% 1.0C:u Bellingham 57,020 $3.11 S2.83 0.238% 6.80% 1.00% Bremerton 35,920 $3.73 S3.50 0.161% 6.00% 1.;)O�o Edmonds 31,100 $2.31 SL90 5.81% 1.004a Everett 78,240 $3.76 S3.26 0.120% 5.85% Federal Way 73.500 $1.57 S1.57 1.00°0 Kennewick 46,960 S2.91 S2.97 7.90% 1.00„0 Kent 41,980 S3.08 S2.62 3.80% 1.00% Kirkland 41900 $2.32 $1.88 5.00% 1.00% Longview 33,080 S3.34 S-34 . 0.125% 6.40°0 1.0,',Q/ Lynnwood 31.680 S2.60 $2.60 jo Olympia 36-740 $3.55 $2.87 0A25% 6.25% i_0C°% 5 1-00% Redmond 39,390 $2.46 S1.74 5' Oo°/° ° Renton 43.970 S3.92 S3.55 6.00% 1.0 ° Richland 35,430 S3.47 $3.17 8.32% 1.00% Seattle 531,400 $3.20 S2.91 0.265% 8.00% 1.00% Spokane 185.600 S4.03 S2.95 10.40% '-.00% Tacoma Ir2_800 $4.25 S3.60 0-211% 7.00% C. Vancouver� 59 225 S3.57 S3.19 0.0820'0 9.80% Yakima 59.740 S3.87 S3.40 9.20% 1.00% City Average - Tax Rates S2.78 0.164% 6.70% 0 98g0_ Only one city, Vanc�-3ver, does not lew the optional 0.5% city sales tax. -sue c ihdLc c+c�+n�+�f P�9mtY CITY OF BET.1- VUE Tax Survey - 1995 Property Tax Rates (per S 1,000 of AV) Regular Excess Total 1994 Property Property Property Cities Population Tax Lew Tax Levy Tax Levy Survevcd {4_ lr_ Rate M Race ( ) R.�ze_(Sl ,kuburn * 34,970 52.70 $0.59 -.29 Bellevue* 99,140 1.8-' 0.35 2.17 57,020 2.83 0.28 3.11 Bellingham 35,920 3,50 0.23 333 Bremerton 90 0.41 2.31 Edmonds 31,100 1.90 0 5 3.76 Everett 78,240 -6 1. 6 73 500 1.57 0.00 Federal Way 2.97 0.00 2.97 Kennewick 46,960 3.08 Kent * 41,880 2.62 0.46 0•44 188 2.32 Kirkland* 41,900 3 88.34 0.00 3.34 Longview 3 ,080 31 2.b0 0.00 2.60 Lynnwood 680 36,740 2.87 0.68 3.55 Olympia .2 0. 46 72 Redmond* 39,390 1.74 0.72 .46 Renton ' 43,970 3•55 92 p 30 3.47 . 35,430 3.17 Richland 531,400 2-91 0.29 3.20 Seattle 195 LOS 4.03 Spokane 185,600 4 75 O.o� Tacoma* 182,800 ' G0 3.57 59.225 3.19 0.39 Vancouver 3 40 0.47 3.97 Yakima 59,740 City Average - 80.39 53.17 Property Tax Rate * Confirmed rates with 1995 Tax Codes &Dries -1-"lg County Assessors Office CS(Liwr4tcN CITY OF BELLEVUE Tax Survey - 1995 Business and OccuP=cn Tax Rates Average Cities Population anu_ B & 0 Surveved (4/l/94) Retail Wholesale fI=rinR Services Raze (1) Other Auburn 34,970 ti $elkvue(2) 99,140 0.150% 0.150% 0.150% O.I50% 0.150% 0.150% 57,020 0.170% 0.170% 0.170% 0.440% 0238% 0.170% Bagr_irtoa 0.160% 0.160% 0.200% 0.161% Bre':�erton 35,920 0.1..5% Edmonds 31,100 Evert[ 78.240 0.1209% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% •0.120:o 0.120= Federal Way 73,500 Kennewick: 46,960 Kent 41,880 Kirkland 41,900 0 Longview33,080 0.100% 0.100°0 0,100°% 0.200 io Lynnwood 31,680 . Olympia 36,740 0.100% 0,100% 0,1000/0 0.200% 0.125% Redmond 39,390 Rcnton 43,970 Richland 35,430 S Bartle 5311.400 0.215% 0.215% 0.215% 0.415% 0265% 0.022% Spokane 185,600 3io 0.102% Q.110% 0.480% 0.211% 0.2Q0°o Tyco= 182,800 0.15 Vancouver 59,225 0.077% 0.015% 0.154% 0,082% 0.077% Yakima 59,740 City Average- 0 _- B & 0 Tax Rare 0,142% 0.133% 0.127% 0.262 .164% 0.093% (1) "Average B&O Tax Rate" represents an;nweightcd average of B&0 taxes levied on Retail,Wholesale, Manufacturna,and Services activities. (2} The figure of 0.150%for Bellevue's average B&O tax rate does not include the Administrative Office tax of SO.1432 *taxable Square footage'and the Employee Hourst of S0.0154 * hours - '=worked per employee. -c:.uorfic.�gow 9sLur-y;u' G1TY OF RFC T R� Tax Survey- 1995 Utility TaxRates Avg Storm U1�ty Cable Cities Population Electric Watcr Sewer Drair3az Telenhcac Tax(11 Cfarbaee Surveved (411194) C-as 4.5090 4.50% 4.50% 4.500% 2.00% 4.50°ro Auburn 34,970 4.50% 4.50% a0% 4.50°l0 4.50% 6.0 % 1.750% 4-5O% 4-30% Bellev= 99,140 4.50% 1.10/0 6.00% 6.800% 4.000/6 Brllin am 57,020 6.00% 6.00% 8.G0% 6.00% 6_000% 19.00% 7.G0% 35,920 6.00% 6.G0°!o 6.004'o 6.QG°/n Bremerton ° 5.75% 5-75% 5.$13°% Eduwads 31.100 5.75% fi_O(t/o 5.75% 5.850% Everett 78,240 5.75% 5.75% 6.00% 6.00% Federal Way 73,500 0 8-5b% 7.900% 7.00%'0 7.00% Kmnewich 46.900 8.50% 3-90% 7.00% 7.00/o ° o/ 41,880 3.80% 3_$0% 3.80% 3.80% .80% 3.30% 3.800% 6.8G,o 5.`JOG Kcnt 5.00% 5.000%0 5.G0°'o Kirkland(2) 4.1,900 5,00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Lnngvictiv 33,080 6.0 % 6.00% 7.000'0 7,00910 6.400% 7a 0°/n 7 % .CC Lynnwood. 31,680 c 7,00% 7.00°/0 ..'�' 0 ..]U°'o O?509'0 7.00% f.00% Olvrap a 36,740 5. O,o/o 5.50% 5.5G% f.fco% 6.00 5.00% Redmond- 39,390 5.500/0 5.50% Peaton 43,970 6.00% 6.00% 6.OG9/o 0.009'0 6.00�% 0.00?/0 5.0009/0 600010 6.000 7 7°/ 7.52"% 95?4'° 9.SZ90 /. 0 S. 0°!0 0 6_ Richland 35,430 .5. o Seattle 531,400 6.00% 6.00°/n 10,000/0 10.00% o.009/° 6.00% 8.000% i0.00% -4.0% Spokgre 185,600 6.00% 6-00% 17.00% 17.00°/n 6.00% i0.+00% 1100%% 5.00 5 Ir ma 182 800 6.00% 6.00°l0 8.OG% 8.005'0 8.G0°/n 6 Cp!o 9.3000°,/°00/6 8.00°'0 8.L0°'o Vancouver(3) 59, E 6.OG°/, 6 00% :5.50°6 15.50% Yakima QO°o 6.OQ°'o 9100% 10,00% 10.009'0 co 740 6.00% 6.00% City Average- o/ ° 584% 6.70% 8.05°% Utility Tax RatCs 5.81% 5.32% -8.03% S.I % 6-26;o . . (1) orm dtaittag"AwragcUtility Tax" represents an unweighte3 avem3e nT ei is bas ..atet sewer, st and t:epflcnc utiiry taxes for cities which char ee utiHt-v tom_ (2) Kirkland s t side3tialrax are listed atte chart ace" Kirtcland's�sme cial rate is 6?/o for Ms eic.teiephcae,a ri .amble, and 6-4%for garbage.ware:, and sewer. (31 p�month, and then 1 'G ;ar any `Jnccuver's gas utility tax rate is 6%for the{1 S2 S2000 of gross receipts per a uswmer ;, edditienal gross sr="..ipts. The el=tric utility tax r�.t'.;s 61,10 for true first Si.00U of grosse rnts pDel-ctstcmcr�r mont^_ and uh:n 2%for any additional gvss rec-cipu. Storrs cr inagc utilitz tax is 515.00 annually. TOT: L P.O4 o Ll c c O " 0 0 V O U O L i i i o � o - o a Gi E c 3 � o na O V v! �J in � cG rn in a v v y - N 3 U L E P o ri T 3 O, r1 P P O P a � p O p O O O O O C ! O O O O G p p a e v� r0 r O O_ O O OO O O O O O q W N N N N N N rl N N N N N N N p J o rl n p (• v1 Ei N V) N VI N N N N N V1 N N Y' V U N N N A p 0 O 0 0 0 O E F O G O C O O rl O O 'ry N N N N N N N V N N N N N N S_ ,•, > O _� O O O O C 'J G r, �� it - O W yd .. n' b L u J � = C p � y • p C rf ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, repealing in its entirety Chapter 7 . 14 of the Kent City Code entitled "Street Utility" . WHEREAS, on or about April 7, 1992 , the City Council , pursuant to Chapter 82 . 80 RCW, established a street utility for the City of Kent ; and WHEREAS, the City of Seattle, which enacted a similar street utility, was recently challenged in Court on the constitutionally of the street utility; and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the State of Washinaton in the case of Covell vs City of Seattle, No . 61178-5 , held that the street utility, as it applies to residential property, was unconstitutional ; and WHEREAS, even though Covell did not address the constitutionality of the street utility as it applies to businesses, the City Council of the City of Kent believes that it is in the City' s best interest to repeal the Street Utility Code in its entirety, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Street Utility SECTION 1 . Repeal of Street Utility. Chapter 7 . 14 of the Kent City Code entitled "Street Utility" is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in Force five (5) days from and after its publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 Street Utility PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . 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 screecu.ord 3 Street Utility q Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: UTILITY TAX 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Commit a has recommended adoption of an ordinance, prepare by the City Attorney, creating a 1% increase in the uti y tax, specifically designated for street purpose which would be a replacement of the Street Utility fee. S eral options were reviewed by the Mayor' s Street Utility T k Force as an alternate to the existing Street Utili fee. The 1% increase in the utility tax is the Task Force commendation. Brent McFall will give a brief presentatio to Council on this issue. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works min es and Mayor's memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public orks Committee (Committee, StaZERSONNEL aminer, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE R /UIPED: $ SOURCE OF F S• 7. CITY COUNC ACTION: Councilm er moves, councilmember seconds adopti of Ordinance No. creating a 1% increase in the utili tax, specifically designated for street purposes, thereby replacing the Street Utility fee. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 4K �i'cfiP�T eur?uC wA:�5 GOnhiTTEE /'7/NNTF$ _ �vv 27, MciS Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance Arith State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional 11 (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities _. that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about S 1 .—'_ Million Dcilars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Ivfanagement Act requires us to have concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not abie to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrence as required by G'NIA whici; means we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development a=-,rity in the City, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simpiv lower the level of service. McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are availabie. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge S 1.90/month per residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. bVe could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utiiity tax increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. It is basically paid by the same people who pays the street utility fee now; residences and businesses. It is paid in roughly the same ratio. McFall said that what we can't tell you is that for each individual customer that they will see no impact up or down because the utility tax is dependent upon usage. McFall said that this option was the recommendation of the Mayor's Street Utility T ask Force and it is the recommendation of the Mayor to proceed this way in order to fund the corridor projects, which allows us to have concurrency, which allows continued development of the City. Further, if that option is taken, it needs to be done in conjunction with each action in conjunction with the other. And also, that the funds be dedicated specifically for that purpose. McFall stated another option is a second quarter percent real estate excise tax which is collected at the time of sale of property; that's an extremely volatile revenue source in that it depends on real estate transactions and generates approximately 5570,000. He noted that it's not a reliable source of revenue and by itself does not replace the S 1.4 million. The Business License option is something that Renton did a number of years - they charge $55 per FTE annually as the business license fee. In order to replace the $1.4 million, we would have to add $36 per Fl E per year on top of our existing business license fee. The disadvantage of this is, it shifts the entire cost to replace the street utility revenue to business. Another option is B&O Tax. This would have significant administrative overhead costs to collect the BRO tax. Another option - the Property Tax Lid lift. This would require about $.35 per thousand of assessed value increase in property tax rates and subject to voter approval. The final option is Transportation Benefit District - also subject to referendum which would again be about 5.35 per thousand of property tax increase. McFall stated that the Mayor's Task Force felt that the only responsibie option was to _ provide funds to construct the corridors, which have a significant impact on the future of the city and to do it in the form of a utility tax increase, earmarked specifically for the corridor projects and transportation projects, and done concurrently with the repeal of - the street utility. We would then show that it truly was a replacement revenue not a new increase in fees. Mayor White noted that the longer this goes on, the greater the risk of our being challenged on the utility. Therefore, this needs to be done in a timely manner as soon as Council is readv to act on it. The Mayor stated that he has made a recommendation and if Council has some other recommendation, we would be happy to listen. He noted that we have invested a tremendous amount of City funds in acquiring property, condemnation procedures, etc. Committee recommended that the City Attorney prepare the appropriate Ordinance repealing the existing Street Utility fee. Committee recommended authorization for the City Attomey to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility, that alternate being a 1% increase in the Utility Tax, earmarked specifically for street purposes, which would be a replacement of the Street Utility and, that those ordinances be adopted at the next full Council on December 12th. 100TH AVENUE EXTENSION - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Committee recommended that the 100th Avenue Extension meeting be held at East Hill Elementary School on Thursdav, December 14th at 5:00 P.M Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Jim Whit -- SUBJECT: Street Utility DATE: November 16, 1995 As you know, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional the residential element of Seattle's street utility. Since Seattle's utility is based upon the same statute as our own. this calls into question the legality of Kent's street utility. On advice of staff. AWC and others. I have caused this matter to be investigated, and am proposing a course of action to substitute an alternate revenue source for our street utility in order to continue development under the city's transportation plan. The balance of the memorandum will outline the issue and the proposed action. I stand ready to work with Council to resolve this potentially serious issue. BACKGROUND The City of Kent adopted its street utility in 1992. and dedicated the revenue to the construction of the 196th and 272nd corridors. We are one of fourteen cities in the state to adopt a street utility. Funds have been expended in right of way acquisition, design, environmental review and the like. Additionally, funds have been accumulating to pay for construction. We now generate approximately $1.4 million from the utility annually. COVELL v. SEATTLE The Seattle case found the residential portion of the street utility to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court determined that the utility fee was, in fact, a property tax. As such. it was not based upon property value, and therefore, invalid. The court did not rule on the commercial fee collected by Seattle, but the arguments used in the lawsuit invalidating the residential portion of the utility would appear to apply to the commercial component. The City Attorney advises that Kent should repeal its street utility, both residential and commercial, as soon as possible to avoid a similar lawsuit being filed against us. IMPACTS OF REPEAT, If the street utility is repealed without replacement revenue. the corridors cannot be built. The corridors are THE major component of our transportation plan. and are necessary to meet the level. of service called for in the transportation plan. Thev are also necessary to meet the concurrence requirement for transportation required by the Growth Management Act. If we do not build the corridors, we have two choices. First. we can allow the level of service to deteriorate until we no longer have concurrence with our transportation plan at which point we can issue NO MORE BUILDING PERMITS! Development in the city stops. Our second choice is to revise downward the level of service called for in the transportation plan. This would, in my opinion- result in an unacceptable level of service. Ultimately, this decision would also effect the economic viabiliry or the city due to the inability of business and residents to travel through the city at acceptable servic-- levels. Both of these impacts are unacceptable. Therefore, we must find a replacement revenue source. REPLACEMENT REVENUE SOURCE On November 15, I called together a group of business people to review this situation and to give me their advice. This group was composed of Jerry Schneider, homebuilder; Rodger Anderson. REALTORS Association; Elizabeth Warman, Boeing; Roy Moore, VATA; Brad Bell. CPA_ Rod Saalfeld, Chamber of Commerce-, and Barbara Ivanov, Chamber of Commerce. The group reviewed the history of the street utility and the impacts of repeal. They determined that the revenue MUST be replaced. Further,the croup reviewed the options that had been identified by staff as replacement sources (see attachments), and developed a recommendation as the best source - of replacement funds. The group's recommendation, with which I concur, is to repeal the street utility and replace the revenue with a 1% in increase in the utility tax. This would raise our rate to 4.59% on ail utilities except garbage which would beat 7.8%- In all cases we would remain lower than the average utiiir: tax charged by cities in the State of Washington. A 1% utility tax would generate approximately S1.4 trillion which would exactly replace the sire--: utilitv revenue. Therefore, such a utility tax increase would be revenue neutral w-itii the street utility which would be repealed. Moreover, a utility tax has the advantage of being spread across both residential and cornmerciai users, also mirroring the street utility. Although individual properties _ would vary, most properties would probably see their utility bills increase as a result of the ur_iir- tax in approximately the same amount that their bills would decrease from repeal of the street uuiit< . Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that this is replacement of existing fees. and is not an additional revenue. In my opinion. this is the only responsible action in light of the consequences Of taking no action. or of not replacing the street utility revenue. ACTION REQUIRED I have directed the Ciry Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement this recommendation, and will ask for your action as soon as possible. probably December 12. I an prepared to discuss this matter further with you. and to answer any questions you may have. attachments cc: Brent McFall. 'IlyIav Miller Roger Lubovich. Don Wickstrom ~ STREET UTILITY FUNDING OPTIONS - 1996 ESTIMATES S Produced Comments 1. Leave Street Utility in place 1,451,449 Seek Leeislative remedy 2. Repeal Utility without replacement revenues 0 Non concurrency with Comprehensive Plan 3. Repeal Utility without replacement revenues 0 Lower GMA Service level 4. Repeal Utility and substitute replacement revenue A. 1%increase in Utility Tax Electric 634`203 Easy implementation Gas 140,763 Consistent revenue flows Telephone 345,274 Not revenue neutral for individual customers Garbage 89,000 2 months lag Water 60,302 Meridian start up Sewer 114,885 Drainage 45.275 1,429,702 B. Second 1/4% Real Estate Excise tax 569,144 Only requires a Council vote Vanes, dependent on property sales. Alone is not sufficient to reolace all revenues lost. C. Business license-add head count portion Requires ordinance chance @$35.98 yearly per FTE X 40,340 1,323.152 Increases$13.18 per year per employee Business picks up residential portion. - OR @$22.80 yeary per FTE X 40,340 919,752 No additional ongoing burcen to business Combined with second 1/4 REET. 1,488,896 If combined with Real estate excise would replace all Street Utility tax revenues. D. City B&O tax @.036%(36 centsi$1000) 1,451. 49 -? May deter new businesses from taming to Kent Collection&administtration would be less cost effective. new tax would require new systems&staff to implement requiring greater total collections Actual rates necessary will be very difficult to determine accurately. estimates range from.017%to.060% E. Property tax Lid Lift @.345/$1000 valuation 1,453,585 Requires voter approvai Assumes$4,213,288,766 assessed valuation. Not considered very likely to succeed. F. Transportation Benefit District 1,453,585 Requires majority vote of Council subject to referendum @ .345/S1000 valuation Impact on other junior taxing districts undetermined. 1 ,„,,. CCC TAxA1.T3.W81 14-Now95 _ITY OF iC•[tT 7:ILITY TAX-DATA 1996 ESTIMATED 3.50% 0.3D% 3.00i .T1'IL2TY TAX: 001 113 14C 170 TOTAL ______________________________________________________________________ ELECIAIC 2,219.709 190,26 2,409,970 GJS 492,671 42,229 534.900 T=LEPEONE 1,208,460 102,582 _,312,042 GARBAGE 311,50'_ 26,700 2671001 605,202 . WATER 211,057 13,09, 229,/48 SEWER 402,096 34,465 436,56' DRAINAGE 158,461 13,582 172,043 ------------------------------------------------- OTAL =TL TAX 5,0031055 0 428,910 2-7,0,1 �,699,366 1996 ESTIMATED 4.5Oi .0.30E 3.00% ... L^T_iiTY TAX: 001 3 14C _70 _.,_%L ______________________________________________________________________ LE=!C - 2,853,912 190,261 3,044,_73 GAS 633,434 ._,229 675,6c3 TELEPHONE 1,553,734 103,So2 _,657,316 GARHAGE 400,501 26,700 -67,001 694.-.,- WA'^R 271,359 1-8.091 289,453 S cA"R 5i6,981 34,465 5S'I,446 DRAINAGE 203,736 13,532 217,31E _________________________________________________ TOTAL ^'_:, TAX 6,433,656 0 428,910 7-67,301 -„567 D ISFER.S'NG _,429,701 0 (01 0 '_.429.7C1 2 Sample Utility Tax Increase Comparison Effect on Residential Consumers Monthly Annual 1% additional Billing Billing Utility tax Electric/Natural Gas 85.00 1,020.00 10.2.0 Phone t0.00 600.00 6.00 Garbage 15.00 180.00 1.80 Water 20.00 240.00 2.40 Sewer 25.00 300.00 3.00 Drainage 4.38 52.56 0.53 199.38 2,392.56 23.93 Street Utility @ 81.90 / month (22.80) Net Effect To Residential Consumers 1.13 4.9% 3 CCC TAXALT3.W81 14-Nov-95 Date : Anril 19 , 1994 To : Mav Miller, _ _nance rom: jimu:tinc�or 1 -� ce cGT- v=Y eS�G e -{c Suhject : Additicna_ 4 - - - Dur' q ttilE i 992 leQ-s aC-7E SESS-CT. 5�75 _^_C -' amenament_=, wer= made to t_ne Rev-Sec. Code C= WasnlnctOn Tick-= ava_-acLe CC Cerra-n Ci tie5 plaILT11_nG under Cr6wt' manaGemenzi =_Cz a-- GGC.' i _ C ax -S matted CV - OC One pes'Cent real estate exc:- _ {- G tG_{ lllUS�. ✓e -S C^ simple majar_ty vote c t___ -- _ - en a -or _7 anc r ina capital _ cje_t= pe_-=- --- _ plan-element C= a ccmpre_ nS- Te Dl ;. The mor_?es - ccllected can e uses Dla?L'__nc, COnstructi On, '�e CCP_st'_'llct iCP_, r�_�a- reclacemert , Or 1mn_ rOVET.iLenl. C- Szree'--= '-"OGCs , _.7 - - -- roaQ _C:t-Ac systemc , syst.eMs , StCr�P, anC.y saI2'`.3r-_/ T_ -_cc J S464 , 909 Was CC'-ecCe^ --C`'-�` - "= C`- _ - - - -- estate ex_c=SE taX C�__ent-':T aLt_iC r . aGC'.- G- _ - c- C__c percent wcLQ add an aC.C.-t-Cna' cllowi-ic _s -Z"n star-.*= -CC. add CiCnal 1�C pErCeTt EStaCe e:{C-Se taX - -_uh u -- Renton. �kwila Yic Nc?mandy _ ar' Seaziz:-le des Moines SeaTac Mercer 7 s-a_^_c eCerG, WGv C Al..ZGC^e^... _Jr _f\.�_ G -u ��. _ 4 Potential B&G tax rate estimates based on various ratios Estimate based on ratio of statewide Retail taxable to B&O taxable sates. Utility tax to replace : ".A5,1'a49 Kent 1996 sales tax ;c -97,SA7 Effective net rate to Kent Projected Kent total retail sales gable 1,r 10,985,938 Kent's estimated share of state B&O tax: Prciectec Kent total retail sales taxable 1,710.985.938 Statewide Income subject tc remii sales lax (94} 60,586.293 940 Kents share of state's B&O sales = - 294. OZ.00Q000 'A Tarcet Revenue - Ken is snare of state's B&O sales S.3 i6.6 r , .-.:0 Note that the City probabty does not have the same ratio of taxable sales as me- c aic. lCrlef r'cIIC C: &C cbfe Sal would reduce the necessary r-te to act MG. IiSn funding reoiacement- Estimate based on ratio of assessed valuation : Kent Assessed Valuation (ga) ?.9'. ,.G41. .7G Mate Assessed Valuation (94) 287,8S5.000.COG Kents share of slate 's B&O sates = 2Sa,SG2.000.000 X a°� _ '. C0.03S.902 T arget Revenue �- i.'1.'.1,44� G.G E a _. un icteg MegeSSaid aic Kerifs share of State's B&O sales -.000.935.952 Estimate based on ratio of population : Kem's P--pumdcn tale _cuiaion 1�.-CO Keats snare of state's B&O sales = 29�.SGZ000,OGO 0.8 i-'S Target Revenue 1,,451,449 0.0600% Estimated necessary rate Kents share of state's B&O sales 2,406,04 1,47 AL CCC TAXAl_T.Wg1 14-Ncv-95 c.'yof6ctl°yN.AS� ,, y Olr B0 T EVUE Tao Survey- 1995 Utility Tax Rates kvg Storm Utility Cities Population c Drainaee elenzonc Tax (I) CruDa2 urveved f411194) Gas E'ecuic wamr Auburn 34,970 4.5O% 0% 4.50% 4.5C° 4.5C Eellevut 99,140 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.50% 4.SU% 6.00% 4.750% 4.50% 30/a g^j�pham 57,020 6.00°/0 6.00% 8.00% 8.00% 6 00% 6.000% 1 00°/0 7 C:J/a 6.00% 6.(i00'/o 19.00% '.0t"1% Brmerton ll; 6.00% 6.00% 6.009/0 6.00% w,o �q�� 31.100 5 00% `_75a/o 5.75% 5.813% =vertu It 9,240 eder. Way 73,500 0 8"50% 900% 7.00% {anIIwviC� 46,960 8.50°% 8.50% 7.00% 7.00% ?.80% / 41,880 3.80% 3.80% 3.30°o :.&0/0 3.80% 3.900% 6.800o c ro Kcal ° 5 5.00% 5.000% 5.00% Kirld=d(2) 41,900 5.00% 5,00% 5.00/0 00% LOIIgY1CK' 33,080 6.00% 6.OQ% 7.009/° 7.00% 6.009/0 4CC°/a 7.00% Lynnwood 31,6s0 01hgnm2 36,740 5.50% 5.50°/0 7.U0% ;,00°io 7.00°a 6150% Redmond 39s90 RLIIIOIl 43°70 6.OQ% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6M% 6.00% 5.000% 6`0° �o/ ^5'la/o - 9.S2no c c2% 1.529/6 8.�20% .o ,o Richland 35.430 7.5 ° ` Ceartle 5 1,400 6.00°% 6.00% 10.004/0 10.00°% i0.000/0. 6.00% 8.000010 i0 00°0 G•.u0 Sonkane 195,600 6.00% 6-00% 17.00% 17.Orj% 6.000 10.400% _.00% T aconl�2 18" 80C c.00°io 6.00% . 8.00% 3 00% 9.00% O.CO /o �0 8.00% 1' ° 6.0000 9. / S.uC4/o Vancouver(3) 54,525 6.00% 6.00% 15.50% =.'0% Yakima 59,740 6_GO°/a 600% 14.004'0 14.00% 6-C10% 9=Q0% 10.0050 10.00°'0 Oily Average o o/ °0 5.89°10 6.'4% 3 OSO/a 6_3:.o 1;311ty ?.x Rates 5.81°% :_82% 3.03/0 8.I7 0 6 6 � z>etitility Tax" r`areseas all unweigilt�ave � i e w ic, gas 'mate:. we sa�rta draivaQ�and tV epncu utui y to es for ties which.charge ittry tax°r_ _' K ianC s r�iaeutiairates aze listed nthe chart aber _ KvrK}and's comet c:al rate is 6%for FS, civic.re=�IIe c:soic, and 6.5%for garoaee,water, and (3 i Vanccuver's gas utility tax rate is 6%for the P.rst 52000 of gross rewipts rPr=ems 0m`r PG month.and thew-^.5%for Cny �/ _ adcitienai g vss r�wiots. Th:eicvsic utiiity-to:ras ;s o,o_nr the first Si.000 ofnss ram^ pts pe cssmmcr moats and;aen 2%for any additional guess receipts. Sett n ^iIIage sr?ir [a:is SI5.00 anauaiiv. TOTAL ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington amending Chapter 3 . 18 of the Kent City Code entitled "Utility Tax on Telephone, Gas, Electric, Garbage, Water, Sewer and Drainage Utilities the utility tax and dedicating a portion of the tax revenue for street improvements . WHEREAS, on or about April 7 , 1992 , the City Council , pursuant to Chapter 82 . 80 RCW, established a street utility for the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, as a result of a court challenge to the City of Seattle ' s street utility in the case of Covell vs . City of Seattle, No . 61178-5 , the City Council repealed the City of Kent ' s street utility; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain the same funding levels for street improvements in the City of Kent , the City Council believes it is in the City' s best interest to increase the City' s utility tax rate as a substitute funding source to be dedicated to street improvements ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . Chapter 3 . 18 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows : Utility Tax CHAPTER 3 . 18 . UTILITY TAX ON TELEPHONE, GAS, ELECTRIC, GARBAGE, WATER, SEWER AND DRAINAGE UTILITIES Sec . 3 . 18 . 010 . Definitions . The following words, terms and phrases , when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Competitive telephone service means the providing by any person of telecommunications equipment or apparatus, or service related to that equipment or apparatus such as repair or maintenance service, if the equipment or apparatus is of a type which can be provided by persons that are not subject to regulation as telephone companies under RCW Title 80 and for which a separate charge is made . Network telephone service means the providing by any person of access to a local telephone network, local telephone switching service, toll service, coin telephone services, telephonic, video, data, or similar communication, or transmission for hire via a local telephone network, toll line or channel , cable , microwave, or similar communication or transmission system. ' 'Network telephone service " includes interstate service, including toll service, originating from or received on telecommunications equipment or apparatus in this state if the charge for the service is billed to a person in this state . ' 'Network telephone service — does not include the providing of competitive telephone service, the providing of cable television service, or the providing of broadcast services by radio or television stations . Telephone business means the business of providing network telephone service, as defined above in this section. It includes cooperative or farmer line telephone companies or associations operating an exchange . Telephone business shall include one hundred (100) percent of the total service fees from calls originating and/or billed to subscribers within the city. Telephone service means competitive telephone service or network telephone service, as defined in the definitions of - 2 ' ' network telephone service ' ' and ' ' competitive telephone service ' ' set out in this section. Sec . 3 . 18 . 020 . Certain utilities subject to tax. A. In addition to the other business and license fees required by the ordinances of the city, there is hereby levied upon all persons (including the city) engaged i~: certain 'business activities a utilities tax to be collected as follows : 1 . Upon every person engaging in or carrvir_g on any telephone business within the city, an annual tax equal to three and one-half (3 1/2) percent of the total gross operat ng revenues, including revenues from intrastate toll, derived from the operation of such business within the city. Tn addition, there - shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3 Dercent effective until 11 : 59 D .m. on December 31 1996 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to vcuth teen programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 Dercent effective until 11 . 59 p .m. on ADrii 7 , 2002 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street im2rovement Droarams . Gross operating revenues for this purpose shall not include charges which are passed on to the subscribers by a telephone company pursuant to tariffs required by regulatory order to compensate for the cost to the company of the tax imposed by this chapter . 2 . Upon every person engaging in or carrying on a business of selling, furnishing, distributing, or producing gaseous gas for commercial or domestic use or purposes, a fee or tax equal to three and one-half (3 1/2) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In addition , there shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3 Dercent effective until 11 : 59 D .m . on December 31 1996 which revenue from said 3 interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs , plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent effective until 11 : 59 p.m. on April 7 2002 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs . 3 . Upon every person engaged in or carrying on the business of selling, furnishing, or distributing electricity for light and power, a fee or tax equal to three and one-half (3 1/2) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which a license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3 percent effective until 11 : 59 p .m. on December 31 , 1996 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent effective until 11 : 59 p .m. on April 7 , 2002 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs . 4 . Upon every person engaging in or carrying on a business providing garbage service, a tax equal to six and one-half (6 1/2) percent of the total cross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3 percent effective until 11 : 59 12 m on December 31 , 1996 which revenue from sa' d interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs , plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent effective until 1i : 59 c .m. on April 7 , 2002 which revenue from said interim tax steal, bP dedicated to street improvement programs . 5 . Upon every person ( including the city) engaging in or carrying on the business of selling, furnishing or distributing water, sewer or drainage services , a tax equal to three and one-half (3 1/2) percent of the 4 total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year . In addition, there shall also be assessed an interim tax of 0 . 3 percent effective until 11 : 59 p .m. on December 31 1996 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs plus an interim tax of 1 . 0 percent effective until 11 . 59 p m on April 7 , 2002 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs . B . In computing the tax provided in subsection A. , the taxpayer may deduct from gross income, the following items : 1 . The actual amount of credit losses and uncollectables sustained by the taxpayer. 2 . Amounts derived from the transactions in interstate and foreign commerce which the city is prohibited from taxing under the laws and constitution of the United States . See 3 18 025 utilities subject Until eeeember -313995 net eetien 3 . 18 . 929 ' iI Feree a 'F - ,s TC"S F i�lews= i— in add--=en to the—eta T '' , se fees r _ ain ledsiness el, F e any _ . _. an ,3 . 8; pereent e€eta gress er.. .,g i-e -2efn - �- 5 rL eeFftpensate te en L , J i i selling, L i _ t.._ , ... L J L , e . ri L L. _ r ar an4- reiqlzit . _r Le- ..1..: ..1.. , _... .__e . i tax eettal to sim anel eight tenths (6 . 8) peLe nt er ��Iae ;l -eee=Hume fLeff,, t r eac te:a-? gm�zeee =neeRre €ref-sdeh-itreiness in ti�e _ p _. - a L 6 .,.. l__y..!I � Ies stistaine4 ley t4=ieN- -. ..... y a cy 1- - -t ti interstate eity e G the 14 - Tlie , _._ ' eEfeet , in liett ef ticie previsiens ef sul5seetien n��aff--c r o iit -c=c Ffte—t-l-=-s sdbse—�4:en slc1a= t.__... be �-=j L tj4:j fereeand C CG 4 . All ref----rees in tit=s e ^ afte t1cle cede G25 til ti:le i r .. a ✓e , -. Sec . 3 . 18 . 030 . Utility tax, when due. The utility tax imposed by section 3 . 18 . 020 of this chapter shall be due and payable in monthly installments and remittance thereof shall be made on or before the last day of the following month in which the tax accrued. On or before said due date, the taxpayer shall file with the finance department a return upon a form to be prescribed and provided by the finance department , which return shall contain a statement by the taxpayer, stating the amount of tax for which he is liable for the preceding monthly period, that the information therein given and the amount of tax liability therein reported are full and true and that the taxpayer knows the same to be true; which statement shall be signed by the taxpayer or authorized agent . Taxpayers expected to owe less than one thousand dollars ($1, 000 . 00) per month may submit taxes on a quarterly basis, taxes shall be due on the last :day of the month following the end of the quarter in which the tax accrued. Quarterly period for the purpose of this chapter shall mean each three-month period of the calendar year. 7 Sec . 3 . 18 . 040 . Taxpayer' s records . Each taxpayer shall keep records reflecting the amount of his gross operating revenues on services within the city, and such records shall be open at all reasonable times to the inspection of the finance director or his duly authorized subordinates for verification of said tax returns or for the filing of a tax of a taxpayer who fails to make such a return. Sec . 3 . 18 . 050 . Failure to make returns or to pay taxes in full . If any taxpayer fails, neglects or refuses to make his return as when required herein, the finance director is authorized to determine the amount of tax payable, and by mail to notify such taxpayer of the amount so determined. The amount so fixed shall thereupon be the tax and be immediately due and payable, together with penalty and interest . Delinquent taxes , including any penalty, are subject to an interest charge o' twelve (12) percent per year (or one (1) percent a month) on anv unpaid balance from the date the tax payment became due, as provided in section 3 . 18 . 030 , until paid. Sec . 3 . 18 . 060 . overpayment of tax. Any money paid to the city through error, or otherwise not in payment of the tax imposed by this chapter, or in excess of such tax, shall, upon request of the taxpayer, be credited against any tax due or to become due from such taxpayer hereunder, or, upon the taxpayer ceasing to do business in the city, be refunded to the taxpayer. Sec. 3 . 18 . 070 . Appeal to hearing examiner. Any taxpayer aggrieved by the amount of tax, interest , or penalties determined by the finance director to be due under the provisions of this chapter may appeal such determinations to the city hearing examiner in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions set forth in Kent City Code Chapter 2 . 32 . Taxpayers shall be required to remit the amounts determined to be due under this chapter prior to filing an appeal . 8 Sec . 3 . 18 . 080 . False returns . It is unlawful for any person subject to this chapter to - fail or refuse to pay the tax when due, or for nay person to make any false or fraudulent application or return or any false statement or representation in, or in connection with such return, or to aid or abet another in any attempt to evade payment of the tax, or any part thereof , or to testify falsely upon any investigation of the correctness of a return upon the hearing of an appeal or in any manner hinder or delay the city or any of its officers in carrying out the provisions of this chapter. Sec. 3 . 18 . 090 . Noncompliance; civil penalty. Any person, firm or corporation subject to this chapter, who refuses to make tax returns or to pay tax when due, or who makes a false statement or representation in or in connection with a utility tax return, or who otherwise violates or refuses to comply with this chapter, is subject to a cumulative penalty in the amount of seventy-five dollars ($75 . 00) per day for each violation. All penalties thereon shall constitute a debt to the city and may be collected by court proceedings , which remedy shall be in addition to all other remedies . Section 2 . Severability. If any section, sentence , clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or consitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . - Section 3 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force sixty (60) days from and after its final passage as provided by law. jIM WHITE, MAYOR 9 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of , 1995 . 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 - Uc:Ii tyt.ord -- 10 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 1995 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: TWO 5-6 YARD DUMP TRUCKS - EQUIPMENT RENTAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this equipment was held on November 17 with 4 bids received. The low bid for this equipment was received by Husky International in the amount of $52,493 . 35, plus tax, per truck. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that Husky International be awarded the low bid of $52,493 . 35 plus tax, per truck. Due to annexation cash flow, authorization is requested to accept delivery of the second truck from Husky International in the Spring of 1996, for the bid amount of $52,493 . 35 plus tax. Total equipment cost for this item is $104,986,70, plus tax. 3. EXHIBITS: Bid summary memorandum 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, tc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $104 986 0 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1 Councilmember 1 moved , Councilmember �' ti seconds that the purchase of two 5-6 yard dump trucks be awarded to Husky International in the amount of $52,493 . 35 plus tax, per each truck and delivery of the second truck be accepted in the Spring of 1996. DISCUSSION• i ACTION. I 1 Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS December 7, 1995 TO: Mayor& City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Bid Results for Purchase of Two (2) 5-6 Yard Dump Trucks Bid opening for these vehicles was held on Friday, November 17, with four bids received. the lowest responsive bid was submitted by Husky International in the amount of$52,493.35, plus tax for each vehicle. We have reviewed the bids and the specifications and found that each one has minor varioations but they all meet the more important requirements asked for. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Purchase of Two 5-6 Yard Dump Trucks be awarded to Husky International Truck, Inc. for the bid amount of $52,493.35, plus tax. BID SUMMARY Bryant Motors, Inc. 1996 International 4900 $56,229.61, plus tax Valley Freighliner, Inc. 1996 Freighliner F670 $55,299.62, plus tax Sea Tac Ford 1996 Ford LN7000 $53,304.00, plus tax Husky International Truck Inc. 1996 International 4900 $52,493.35, plus tax MOTION: Councilmember. moves, Councilmember seconds that the Purchase of Two 5-6 Yard Dump Trucks be awarded to Husky International Truck Inc., for the bid amount of$52,493.35, each, plus tax.. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 . 1995 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: GASOLINE AND INCIDENTAL SUPPLIES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bids were recently submitted for City- wide fuel services for the next three years beginning January 1, 1996. Three vendors bid on the project: Associated Petroleum Products, Don Small & Sons, and Delta Western. Based on the types of fuel and annual volumes used, Don Small & Sons was the lowest bidder. It is recommended that Don Small & Sons be awarded the contract. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Purchasing and deta/information 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commissi n, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPAC : NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember move, Councilmember v' seconds that the contract for gasoline and incidental supplies be awarded to Don Small & Sons in the amount of $183 ,505. 50. DISCUSSION• ACTION: v Council Agenda Item No. 5B December 5, 1995 TO: May Miller Finance Director FROM: Thomas D. Vetsch Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation for Gasoline Services Contract We recently solicited sealed bids for the Fuel Services City wide. The contract is for three years beginning January 1, 1996. The following three vendors bid on the project are listed below: 1. Associated Petroleum Products 2. Don Small & Sons 3 . Delta Western Based on types of fuel and annual volumes used, Don Small & Sons were the lowest price bid. As you can see from the detail pricing sheet the bids were extremely close. It is our recommendation that Don Small & Sons be awarded the Bid for the next three years. DETAIL BID SHEET INFORMATION RECEIVED NOVEMBER 27, 1995 Annual Company Volume Price Total Associated Petroleum Unleaded Premium 75,000 1. 0480 78, 600. 00 Unleaded Regular 99, 000 .9372 92, 782 . 80 Diesel 15, 000 .8677 13, 015. 50 Total 184, 398 . 30 Average Price 0. 98 Don Small & Sons Unleaded Premium 75, 000 1. 0417 78, 127. 50 Unleaded Regular 99, 000 .9310 92, 169 . 00 Diesel 15, 000 .8806 13, 207. 00 Total 183 , 505.50 Average Price 0.97 Delta Western Inc Unleaded Premium 75, 000 1. 1456 85,920. 00 Unleaded Regular 99, 000 .9956 98 .564.40 Diesel 15; 000 . 8950 13, 425. 00 Total 197, 909. 40 Average Price 1. 05 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12.1995 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL RESURFACING PROJECT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Seven (7) bids were received on November 28, 1995, for the Interurban Trail Resurfacing Project. Western Asphalt of Maple Valley was the low bidder at $135, 646 (base bid) . The Engineer's estimate was $194�560. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Co7:. NO on, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPAC X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $153 48 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember ��' move, Councilmember •' ItAUTt seconds to accept the base bid of Western Asphalt in the amount of $135, 646, plus Schedule 4 unit price additions in the amount of $17,835 (to include Unit Price Items C, D, E, F, I, J, and K) for a total contract amount of $153 , 481 for the Interurban Trail Resurfacing Project. DISCUSSION:} J - ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 5C 0) J m O M tM C) t- a N to O co CO) ti tt) O t6 O Q M (O0 ti h ti ti 0) N H m d � m dO � CD O C Z = O t0 d O (3 N 0 L) tMo m m CD o w Q Z = m O a O to N� .0 t- a0 N le OO ? C NNM M V) qe le tD D4 � m -jV " o E V LOo coMm D w Z c oo to O to •- w N co Q 0 Y N Q N W m qe N 0 Q LL Q m cn V a Im- Y 3 � m > a o am d a a �a c vi Y ea o t-- �, O 0 _ >, tt{ M CL co _ r r L y N E Q a w 0 O m Q O 0 = �o v �— = O ++ d U t7� t71 d rS cc v Y a N 'a Y d w O f� J J a 2 •O Q L a m r N M of N9 tD h CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE '; C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE- , ;1� f E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ' 1 i C OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Christi Houser, Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Ken Chatwin,Lois Deusen,Jim Huntington,Roger Lubovich,Arthur Martin, Brent McFall, May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Jim White, Don Wickstrom MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.pi. by Chairperson Johnson. Apnroval of Vouchers: All claims for the period ending November, 15, 1995, in the amount of $1,855,300.08 were approved for payment. Safet�Awards Contract Renewal: Risk Manager Ken Chatwin reviewed page 34 of the October Financial Report with the Committee. Chatwin explained that the safety awards contributed to the health of the worker's compensation fund by increasing awareness and recommended that we continue the program in 1996. He noted that costs will be reduced because videos, etc. had already been purchased at the onset of the program. After reviewing the history of the program, Ken proposed that we continue with three drawings which combine Public Works Operations and Golf Maintenance; Public Works Engineering and Parks Maintenance; and a final drawing for the remaining 400 employees. Committeemember Orr moved to recommend authorization for the renewal of the safety award contract with Victor House Publications for 1996. Houser seconded the motion which passed 3-0. Worizers' Compensation Claims Administfa*0 on act Renewal: Ken Chatwin reported that in August the Committee had looked at competitive bids and decided not to do a request for proposal. Ken explained that the proposed contract from Scott Wetzel has some modest increass including an increase of$25 per claim for indemnity claims, an increase of$5 per claim for medical only, and an increase of$300 for the administration fee. Chatwin explained that he felt these increases were in the ball park and are reasonable fees. After reviewing the billing structure with the Committee, Ken recommended renewal of the contract with Scott Wetzel. Committeemember Houser moved to recommend authorization for the renewal of the Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Contract with Scott-Wetzel for 1996. Orr seconded the motion. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there was any discussion and called for a vote. The motion passed 3-0. 1995 Accounts Receivable Write-Off: Finance Division Director May Miller directed the Committee to the memo included in the agenda packet to Tom Vetsch from Patty Roseto which summarizes the accounts receivable history. May noted that the write-offs have decreased every year. She explained that the City changed to a collection agency in 1993 and then followed their example to take over collections in-house. She noted that collection efforts have resulted in the lowest write-offs she can remember with the remaining accounts being unable to locate;too small to be cost effective to pursue or businesses that have closed. During discussion of the write-offs, May noted that the Municipal Court had been included in 1993 but has been handled separately since then with their accounts being brought forward for write-offs in the spring. May explained that the graphs included in the packet included the Court for 1992 only. Houser moved to recommend authorization to write-off$1,846.25 in uncollected accounts receivable for 1995. Orr seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 3-0. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. NnVPMRFR 1995 Budget Adjustment Ordinance & H&CD Line of Credit: May Miller explained that the State Auditor requires that by the end of January a budget adjustment ordinance must be passed. She noted that Finance has kept track over the year of the adjustments that have been approved. May stated that of the removal of the drainage bond sales and debt payment of ($14,397,464) resulted in a net negative effect. Of the $11,753,850 remaining, $9,080,017 has been previously approved. The majority of the remaining adjustment is for the Metro pass through. She explained that V5,000 covers the contractor for plan review which was covered by plan check fees, and $60,000 is the reallocation of facility costs which will be adjusted in 1996. Miller listed the adjustments for the street corridor reallocation for drainage, the court expenses for probation and court clerks, Fire Relief& Pension expenses controlled by the Board, the summer trails project grant not adopted, and the acquisition of the Meldrum property as expenses covered by this adjustment. May also explained that a loan is required to cover housing and community development costs that must be expended before reimbursed by grant revenues. May recommended that the Committee move ahead with adopting this house cleaning ordinance. Committeemember Houser moved to recommend approval of the budget adjustment ordinance for 1995 totaling the gross budget adjustment of($2,643,614), and recommended approval of a line of credit in an amount not to exceed$250,000 to cover housing and community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County. Orr seconded the motion. Johnson called for a vote and the motion passed 3-0. Water Revenue Refunding Bonds: May Miller stated that at the previous Committee meeting Dick King had mentioned that we would be looking at the water bonds. May explained that the interest rates are much lower now and would save the city approximately $800,000 over the life of the bonds in today's market. In addition, May noted that the last update of the bond ordinance was passed in 1973. The revised ordinance will accurately reflect the revenue/debt ratio and the rate stabilization account. May concluded that this will also provide the necessary structure .in preparation for the pipeline five project. Council . Member Orr moved to recommend authorization for the City to negotiate the sale of water revenue refunding bonds with Lehman Brothers. Houser seconded the motion which passed 3-0. Sister GWInternationaj Activities Report: Governmental Relations Manager Arthur Martin stated that his report was distributed with the agenda. Arthur reported that the international trade/sister city programs are both satisfying and frustrating mostly due to the need to be flexible with foreign guests and outside entities. He explained that he would like to change many of the functions to take place at night to improve Council participation. He noted that the trade exchange has developed into a regional program and the delegations visited as many as 100 companies. Arthur estimated the number of people participating at approximately 1,500 including the top levels of the state and federal government representatives. In summarizing the exchange, Arthur noted that the City of Kent has gained an international reputation as being a hospitable place to visit and do business. During his report, Arthur noted that a delegation led by the Mayor of Kaibara is expected to visit in April and a delegation from Kent will go to Kaibara in May,possibly as part of the recruiting trip to Yangzhou and Shanghai. Committee Chair Johnson asked if it would be possible to receive a summary of the next legislative Page 2 �_. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. NOVEMRER22-,,--M95 session in Olympia. Martin responded that he had attended Association of Washington Cities meetings to set priorities for the cities. When AWC met with leaders of the legislature, they were informed that the leadership will override Governor Lowry's veto of the tax cuts, then they will begin working on the supplemental budget and will work on a revised version of R48 aimed toward regulatory reform. After further discussion of legislative issues, Houser suggested that a written report to Council on the top issues be prepared. Johnson suggested that updates be given to the Committee during the session and recommtndations to Council on the need for contacts fo-elected officials. Martin responded that the AWC would appreciate participation of the city's elected officials. McFall suggested that this be a regular agenda item during the session. ,Street Utility Report: Director of Operations Brent McFall explained that this item has been thrust upon the city and he would like to update the Committee with the help of May Miller, Don Wickstrom and Roger Lubovich. He noted that they are not necessarily asking for a recommendation but would like to educate the Committee on this issue. McFall explained that the State Supreme Court recently ruled that the Seattle residential utility tax is unconstitutional and that further they had no authority to levy a property tax. It is felt that this will also apply to commercial accounts as well and necessitates the repeal of the City of Kent's Street Utility Ordinance. Ile noted that this does not apply to Kent yet but after discussions with the Attorney General, repeal of the ordinance is recommended. McFall stated that the Street Utility was adopted in 1992 to fund the corridor projects and that the Growth Management Act requires concurrence which applies to funding being tied to projects. McFall stated that if the city loses its concurrence we will have the choice of stopping building or lowering our levels of service which could have dramatic results. McFall stated that staff has tried to identify options to replace the revenue of$1.4 million per year. The Mayor convened a task force of community members listed in the packet. The conclusion of the task force was that the only viable option is to repeal the utility and the addition of a 1% utility tax. During discussion of the tax, McFall noted that it is expected that this would result in a neutral adjustment on the aggregate but there is no way of assuring that each house will be equal to the past utility charge. He explained that this appears to be the most equitable way of spreading the costs to the same users. During discussion Houser stated that the legislature had said the city could enact the utility. McFall responded that the Courts have contradicted this and the city could leave it in place or repeal it and ask for a legislative remedy which may or may not happen. A discussion of the Court ruling followed. May Miller distributed a handout outlining the street utility options. Houser questioned the amounts used in the sample utility tax increase comparison. McFall noted that this is an example only of the impact of the tax. After further discussion, Houser moved to repeal the street utility tax, Orr seconded. Mayor White stated that unless the Council is willing to replace the revenue he will have to ask staff to shut down work on the corridors. The Committee discussed notification to citizens and Houser withdrew her motion. October Financial Report: May Miller reviewed the October Financial Report with the Committee. On page twelve May noted that the drop in sales tax is being reviewed, it could be one or two businesses not reporting, but PgaF OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. NOV EMBER U, ,-025 overall the city is still 2.9% over budget. On pages 15 through 17, May reviewed the building permits with and without the Regional Justice Center. May reported that there are five new commercial pen-nits with a valuation of$5.3 million, and nine tenant improvements included in October's figures. During May's review of the Street Fund, Don Wickstrom noted that if the city does not meet the Growth Management Plan deadlines,revenue will be pulled for nonconcurrency. May concluded her report and asked if there were any questions. i Leona Orr asked if the utility tax issue would go to the Public Works Committee also. McFall responded that it would. There being no further business, Committee Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:20. Page 4 1. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOV-EMBER 27, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Mayor White Don Wickstrom Brent McFall May Miller Roger Lubovich ABSENT: Jim Bennett MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Wickstrom explained that this is a carry-on of studies we have been conducting on Mill Creek in conjunction with Auburn and King County; all sharing the costs to help resolve the flooding problems south of the Green River. He noted that this is already budgeted Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Mill Creek Interlocal Agreement. Discussion: Tom Brubaker suggested that the indented paragraph of the Agreement on Page I be removed and inserted as another paragraph on Page 2 because that is the statement of intent and purpose for the entire Agreement. Committee concurred. WASTE REDUCTION &RECYCLING GRANT - COMPOST BIN DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM Wickstrom said that this is a grant we received for special events in the recycling area. This project costs about $41,400 and the grant will pay 60% or $24,840. We will be matching with our Countywide Waste Reduction S&Recycling Grant. Essentially, it is 100% funded. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that advertising for this program is being made thru the Mayor's T.V. forum with the Conservation Specialist as well as flyers in the utility billings. Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement with the WQA State Dept of Ecology, for staff to accept the grant and, establish a budget for the 1 Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which-is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about $1.4 Million Dollars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrency as required by GMA which means we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the City, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of service. McFall said that as a staff, we have tried to identify the options that are available. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1% increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per residential unit and $1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. 2 .14 1 It is basically paid by the same people who pays the street utility fee now; residences and businesses. It is paid in roughly the same ratio. McFall said that what we can't tell you is that for each individual customer that they will see no impact up or down because the utility tax is dependent upon usage. McFall said that this option was the recommendation of the Mayor's Street Utility Task Force and it is the recommendation of the Mayor to proceed this way in order to fund the corridor projects, which allows us to have concurrency, which allows continued development of the City. Further, if that option is taken, it needs to be done in conjunction with each action in conjunction with the other. And also, that the funds be dedicated specifically for that purpose. i. McFall stated another option is a second quarter percent real estate excise tax which is collected at the time of sale of property; that's an extremely volatile revenue source in that it depends on real estate transactions and generates approximately $570,000. He noted that it's not a reliable source of revenue and by itself does not replace the $1.4 million. The Business License option is something that Renton did a number of years - they charge $55 per FTE annually as the business license fee. In order to replace the $1.4 million, we would have to add $36 per FTE per year on top of our existing business license fee. The disadvantage of this is, it shifts the entire cost to replace the street utility revenue to business. Another option is B&O Tax. This would have significant administrative overhead costs to collect the B&O tax. Another option - the Property Tax Lid lift. This would require about $.35 per thousand of assessed value increase in property tax rates and subject to voter approval. The final option is Transportation Benefit District - also subject to referendum which would again be about $.35 per thousand of property tax increase. McFall stated that the Mayor's Task Force felt that the only responsible option was to provide funds to construct the corridors, which have a significant impact on the future of the city and to do it in the form of a utility tax increase, earmarked specifically for the corridor projects and transportation projects, and done concurrently with the repeal of the street utility. We would then show that it truly was a replacement revenue not a new increase in fees. Mayor White noted that the longer this goes on, the greater the risk of our being challenged on the utility. Therefore, this needs to be done in a timely manner as soon - as Council is ready to act on it. The Mayor stated that he has made a recommendation and if Council has some other recommendation, we would be happy to listen. He noted that we have invested a tremendous amount of City funds in acquiring property, 3 condemnation procedures, etc. Committee recommended that the City Attorney prepare the appropriate Ordinance repealing the existing Street Utility fee. Committee recommended authorization for the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility, that alternate being a 1% increase in the Utility Tax, earmarked specifically for street purposes, which would be a replacement of the Street Utility and, that those ordinances be adopted at the next full Council on December 12th. 100TH AVENUE EXTENSION - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Committee recommended that the 100th Avenue Extension meeting be held at East Hill Elementary School on Thursday, December 14th at 5:00 P.M Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m. 4