The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/21/1995 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF Rol Mayor Jim White Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr February 21 , 1995 Office of the City Clerk %�+x "Pv. V- ) SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING INVIC'I'A February 21, 1995 Council Chambers 7: 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCIILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS -A _ � : Proclamation - Youth Arts Month �r Update of King County Council Issues by County Councilmember Vance ,- C. RTA Proposal Update ,,,D Kent Transit Advisory Board Commendation 2 . PUB3 IC HEARINGS ,,,,Ar- Drainage Utility Financial Plan and Revenue Program - ordinance and Resolution 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR --A. Approval of Minutes �:- Approval of Bills 14�v Z ,r.-- -Special Election on Curfew - Resolutions Appointment of Auditing Officer - Ordinance,15 Regional Justice Center - Budget Change ,,E r' Upper Garrison Creek Conveyance Improvements - Accept as Complete 98th Avenue Drainage Repair/111th-112th Avenue Walkways/5th Avenue Pavement Replacement/110th Avenue Sewer Extension - Accept as Complete _, .` Kent Elementary School No. 26 (Meadow Ridge Elementary) - Bill of Sale ' Metro 6-Year Service Program Tacoma' s Second Supply Pipeline - � King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement ,hk" Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens ,W. Green River Levee Improvements - Accept as Complete MCI Metro Franchise 4. OTjiER BUSINESS .jt'0 Julie's Addition Final Plat FSU-94-7 —3-." Surplus Vehicles _J21, Voter's Pamphlet on .Initiative Petition 101 (Curfew) - Ord. 5. BIDS None 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTS 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. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) Proclamation - Youth Arts Month B) Update of King County Council Issues by County Councilmember Vance C) RTA Proposal Update D) Kent Transit Advisory Board Commendation 11-114, Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: DRAINAGE UTILITY FINANCIAL PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for the public hearing on the Drainage Utility's proposed Six Year Capital Improvement Program and subsequent 195 and '96 rate increases. The Public Works Director will give a brief presentation thereon. The Public Works Committee has reviewed this issue and, should no new information be presented warranting modi- fication of the proposal, recommends adoption thereof. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum, Six Year Financial Plan and Revenue Program, photos , resolution, ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-1 vote) (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: (1) Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Resolution No. relating to a 6-year CIP for the Drainage Utility, authoriz ' g and approving the implementation, financing and establishme of budgets for the first and second year's program and author' ing the sale of storm drainage revenue bonds. (2) Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance N�. changing the rate charged by the City for its storm And surface water utility. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FEBRUARY 21, 1995 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Don Wickstromb� RE: Drainage Utility Proposed Capital Improvement Program & Rate Increases Attached is a Six Year Financial Plan & Revenue Program for the Drainage Utility. This Financial Plan & Revenue Program correlates to the drainage utility element of the Capital Facility Plan presented in the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan. For this six year period, the Capital Improvement Program, as reflected in the attached Table, is estimated to cost $25,455,000 and it is a follow-on of the last adopted programs wherein the 1992 rate increase was the first years' implementation thereof. It targets through 1997 the same three projects (Garrison Creek Flood and Erosion Control Facility, Valley Detention and Mill Creek Flood and Erosion Control) as a means of resolving major flooding problems. After '97 the emphasis shifts to water quality improvements. As you are aware, the flooding conditions being addressed relates to the Mill Creek and garrison drainage basins. The enclosed photos are a reminder of the extent of said flooding. The focus of the '95 program is both completion of the Upper Garrison Creek Trunk and Detention system and the construction of the Valley Detention project. Due to the financial magnitude of the Valley Detention project, it is carried over into 1996 for which it is the sole focus of that year. The 1997 focus is on completing the reconstruction of the balance of the restrictive culverts along Mill Creek from the Senior Center northerly to 76th Avenue. With the completion of the above improvements the flooding denoted in the photos should be a thing of the past. To finance these improvements, yearly increases are required. The attached Table denotes what the proposed rates are. Because the rates vary from basin to basin, depending on the improvements required therein, for '95 the proposed rate increase ranges from $0.49 to $2.70 per month per equivalent service unit. (An equivalent service unit equates to a single family residence). For '96 the proposed rate increase ranges from $0.41 to $0.82 per month per equivalent service unit. The attached Table 1-1 denotes the net increase for various class of customers per the proposed '95 rate increase. Unlike previous years whereupon presenting the program we requested just implementing the first years' rate proposal, our request here is for the first and second year rates. We do so because of the Valley Detention project. As noted earlier, due to the magnitude of this project, it is proposed to be funded over a two year period. The project however, doesn't lend itself to be readily divided efficiently into segments that correlate to the available funding. As such, and in the hope of securing better bids, we're leaning towards one major contract with a restrictive work requirement aligning to our cash flow scenario. In anticipation of this in developing the Financial Plan & Revenue Program, we used an interest rate for the sale of the bonds of 8% except for the '96 issue wherein we used 9%. We took this conservative approach in the hopes that the proposed '96 rate, if approved here, would not have to change should the bond interest rate fluctuate significantly. In addition to the two year rate proposal, the total funding of the Valley Detention project has long been perceived to be via both a utility rate increase and a U.L.I.D. within the immediate area. We are now proposing to finance it all via a utility rate increase. We do so because it's more cost effective and it would also enable the project to be built in '95. All U.L.I.D.'s or L.I.D.'s have some fixed basic cost associated with the process. Due to the size of the proposed U.L.I.D., that cost totalled over several hundred thousands of dollars. Also, the time associated with the formation and finalizing of the U.L.I.D. with all the hearings, protests, and etc., is extremely lengthy; particularly so when dealing with 300 to 400 property owners. Because the success of the construction of the Valley Detention project is predicated upon the groundwater conditions, the construction work must start on or before May 1st. Formation of a U.L.I.D. would not lend itself to this schedule. Incorporating the U.L.I.D. funding into the utility rate does increase the rate within the Mill Creek basin. It adds about $1.47 per month per equivalent service unit thereto. Except for the basin which would have had the U.L.I.D., it adds $2.30 per month per equivalent service unit. This increase of$2.30 is slight considering the financial impacts the U.L.I.D. would have had. Should little or no significant input be heard warranting modification of the proposal, it is the Public Works Committee's recommendation that the proposal, as presented, be adopted. UTRATES-2 The resultant charges by basin which includes adjustments for LID and potential LID debt service are as follows: $/ESU/MONTH* Existing Basin Rate 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Westside: Basin 0 1.75 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 Mill Creek (Auburn) , Johnson Creek, Midway Creek & Mullen Slough (K,L,M,D,E,F,P & N) 1.76 2.27 2.70 2.82 2.95 3.09 3.16 Eastside: Mill Creek Upper (G) 4.38 7.01 7.81 8.15 8.23 8.31 8.35 Lower (A) 4.51 7.17 7.99 8.49 8.89 9.36 9.39 ULID 306 (Q) 2.23 4.93 5.75 5.84 5.95 6.05 6.10 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 2.98 4.23 4.65 4.75 4.87 4.99 5.05 Upper (J&I) 2.84 4.07 4.48 4.56 4.69 4.80 4.87 Direct (C) 2.11 3.36 3.79 4.47 4.92 5.44 5.49 Soos Creek (H) 1.75 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 * Includes 3.8% City utility tax plus LID debt service. The net financial impact of the proposed rate increase is summarized in Table 1-1. -7- Y C ti � (•] co CO O tD (•7 I� O N O 01 .Z.i O n r-1 Ol co, 0 O n% O L r7 t0 m ti .-1 ('7 CD C6 P-- N U p Ln O p to to 0 0 O O O O N U coCO- C1 .--� to to t� N O O l�0 N f�'l 07 �N-I �^-I co ID N C7 cm Ol O V O O Ol O Q cotD m �D C' O O• O N . a0 to V V t7 Q1 M N cD i0 co Ln r�•I N M C � N p Ln m p p In r i N O t� N O O t� N O O Ln In O O .... y� L c7 .-a to In L co .--I CO CO b N t+] C coe� Q -1 N t7 y O D N C- A W O O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ^ N 01 r-1 O iO In �n 0 0 O O O O N n OO Lc; Q U to O OD m N � J q Y O U N N O] O COp N m O O L L l�D O �D Ln N < N n n fN'1 O U to Ln ¢ r^-1 Cam') n 01 tf! 1� y r J e r-i O� O �n �n 0 0 0 0 0 0 co ? .--1 ID O cn O N •--1 m CD N O O v N �D a0 R " n N [") N O t") O .� m O p •--1 ti t`7 in 1� Ol ti N Lo m M In A L M F- D v F O _ y 2 u O d m .-•1 n p CO O E Y lL In N to �D N N OD .--I O 7 n cn O CO N CNJ L L W O C7 f7 l0 O N .^-� Ln �D O � N Ol U O r•1 r-1 � _ J N v Y 3 C .�-� R m � ti COO � CD O N vl O O C') m kD O% m iu m OD Ln Ln 0 0 000 0 0 0 N r-i N N C7 O N N N W � y c c t'i J•� 6 u � A r q L Ol C O > U a > L 61 � L O U L O U 4 U Cp N �J O Q N �pOf +pCe O Q +v +pGe gypp! O Q +e +poe +e O -8- Table 3-1 1995 - 2000 Capital Improvement Program Storm Capital Projects Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Mill Creek (Auburn) & 100 120 120 340 Mullen Slough Flood Control Improvement Valley Detention 9,288 2,995 12,283 Mill Creek Flood & 1,500 1,500 Erosion Control Garrison Creek Flood 1,140 1,140 & Erosion Facilities Horseshoe Acre Storm 280 280 Pump Station Miscellaneous Drainage 150 378 393 409 425 442 2,197 Improvement Drainage ImpProvements in 265 865 500 418 507 2,555 Concert with Road Improvements 3rd Avenue Storm Trunk 280 280 Stream Restoration & 42 5 47 Streamside Tree Planting Storm Drainage Outfall 720 1,884 2,229 4,833 Treatment Facilities Total 11,265 4,363 3,013 2,793 3,072 949 25,455 -17- CITY OF KENT MAYOR JIM WHITE CITY COUNCIL JUDY WOODS TIM CLARK LEONA ORR JONJOHNSON PAULMANN JIM BENNETT CHRISTI HOUSER FINANCIAL PLAN & REVENUE PROGRAM FOR DRAINAGE UTILITY 1995 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FINANCE DIRECTOR DON E. WICKSTROM, P.E. MAY MILLER TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Chapter 1 Summary 1 Chapter 2 Financial Condition 9 Chapter 3 Capital Improvement Program 15 Chapter 4 Financing Methods 18 Chapter 5 Drainage Utility User & Basin 26 Characteristics Chapter 6 Drainage Utility Revenue Requirements 31 Chapter 7 Drainage Utility Cost of Service 35 Allocation Chapter 8 Drainage Utility Rates 39 LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1-1 Net Financial Impact of Proposed Rate Increases 8 Table 2-1 Enterprise Funds Balance Sheet 10 Table 2-2 Enterprise Funds Operating Statement 12 Table 2-3 Revenue Bond Coverage 13 Table 2-4 Outstanding Long Term Debt 14 Table 3-1 1995-2000 Capital Improvement Program - Storm Capital Projects 17 Table 4-1 Estimate of Proposed Six-Year Capital Improvement Bonding Requirements 23 Table 4-2 Proposed Debt Service 24 Table 4-3 Estimated Debt Service and Flow of Funds Schedule 25 Table 5-1 Estimate of Future ESU's 30 Table 5-1 Total ESU's Per Basin 30 Table 6-1 Capital Revenue Requirements 33 Table 6-2 Historical and Projected Operation and Maintenance 34 Expense by Cost Category Table 7-1 Benefiting Basins 36 Table 7-2 Percentage Relationship of Basin Projects to CIP 37 Table 7-3 Allocation of Debt Service and Coverage to Basin 37 Table 7-4 Allocation of Existing Debt Service and Coverage to Benefiting Basin 38 Table 7-5 Cost Summarization by Benefiting Basin 38 Table 8-1 First Tier Cost 43 Table 8-2 First Tier Service Charge 43 Table 8-3 Basin Specific Charge 41 Table 8-4 Summary of Service by Basin 45 Table 8-5 L.I.D. Debt Service 46 Table 8-6 Summary of Service by Basin 46 Table 8-7 Proposed Service Rate Increase 47 Table 8-8 Net Impact of Proposed Rate Increases 48 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 Distinct Drainage Basins 16 Figure 2 Dollar Value of Building Permits 29 FINANCIAL PLAN AND REVENUE PROGRAM CHAPTER1 SUMMARY The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings and conclusions developed in the ensuing chapters. This information is presented in chapter outline form. Chapter 2 — Financial Condition For debt security purposes, the drainage utility is combined with the sewer utility for which the financial condition thereof is reviewed. It is concluded that the utilities are in healthy financial condition based on current levels of operations and financial commitments. Chapter 3 -- Capital Improvement Program There are approximately 12,697 acres divided into 17 distinct drainage basins serviced by the drainage utility. Those basins lying north and east of the Green River have been identified as needed capital improvements. The capital improvements identified address both the flooding and water quality. The estimated capital expenditures for these improvements plus normal drainage resolution projects are $25.455 million. Chapter 4 -- Financing Methods Alternative capital financing sources are investigated within this chapter. These include state and federal grants plus private financing, including pay-as-you-go and long- term debt. Grant programs of the following agencies were investigated: Washington State Department of Ecology U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Army Corps of Engineers At this time it is not believed that there is a high probability of obtaining any grant funds offered by the aforementioned agencies. The following private financing mechanisms were reviewed. Pay-as-you-go Long-term debt: Assessment bonds General obligation bonds Revenue bonds The proposed financing is a combination of pay-as-you-go and revenue bonds as summarized below: Cash: 7,688 Revenue Bonds 18,317 It is assumed that bonds would have a 20-year term and bear an annual interest rate of 8 percent except in 1996 which will bear a 9% annual interest rate. . Associated average annual debt service during the study period 1995-2000 is $1,554,200. Chapter 5 Drainage Utility User and Basin Characteristics Drainage utility contributors are classified in the following two major categories: 1. Single family residential parcel. 2. All other developer parcels. -2- A typical single family residential parcel contains 2500 square feet of impervious surface. This then is the basis on which all other developed parcels are measured (equivalent service unit (ESU) = 2500 sq. ft. of impervious surface). Also for parcels developed to greater than 40 percent of their total area, the following factors are multipliers of their equivalent service units: % Area Developed Factor 40 to 60 1.2 60 to 80 1.4 80 to 100 1.6 Total number of ESU's within the City as of November, 1994 is 93,351. This amount is anticipated to grow at a rate of 467 ESU' per year. Chapter 6 — Drainage Utility Revenue Requirements Annual revenue requirements of the drainage utility are calculated using the Cash Basis Method. The cash basis is purely a cash flow method measuring cash needs for the study period. The annual revenue requirements for the utility by year during the study period is as follows: Year Dollars ($1.000) 1995 5,692 1996 6,440 1997 6,829 1998 7,148 1999 7,502 2000 7,596 Q11apter 7 Service Allocation The cost of the base line maintenance and operation budget is anticipated to be shared City wide. On the other hand, the cost of the capital improvement program is to be charged back to the parcel within the respective benefiting basin. A summarization of the cost allocation by year is given below. -4- Benefiting Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B 21,983 40,231 52,640 52,613 52,580 52,585 C,Q,A & B 101,862 102,166 101,741 101,073 100,284 100,405 A & G 2,418,399 2,646,890 2,797,189 2,789,288 2,779,955 2,781,390 Q 217,320 257,589 257,589 257,589 257,589 257,589 B, I & J 447,287 448,015 446,996 445,394 443,500 443,792 C 64,068 64,110 93,045 92,952 92,841 92,858 C & A 0 0 74,557 238,471 439,458 439,458 A 1,339 1,343 1,337 1,329 1,318 1,320 ALL (CIP) 410,742 790,656 830,906 909,291 984,475 982,603 ALL (M&0) 2,009,000 2,089,000 2, 173,000 2,260,000 2,350,000 2,444,000 Total 5,692,000 6,440,000 6,829,000 7,148,000 7,502,000 7,596,000 -5- Chanter 8 -- Drainage Utility Rates The resultant rate structure is a two-tiered monthly charge described as follows: Tier 1 --Variable Charge Administration and engineering, based on number of ESU's planning, regulation, operation and maintenance and capital cost of system-wide improvements. Tier 2 — Special Assessments Basin-specific capital improve- ments, studies or extraordinary maintenance The formula for computing annual rates under the rate structure is: Basic annual charge per ESU x number of ESU's (per parcel) x Imperviousness factor = annual rate (per parcel) Where: Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) = Average square feet of impervious area for single family residential parcels. Equivalent Service Unit (ESUI = a multiplier which upwardly adjusts the charges per ESU to reflect the hydraulic impact of the extent of imperviousness; i.e., the higher the percentage of impervious area, the larger the multiplier, and thus, the higher the charge per ESU. -6- The resultant charges by basin which includes adjustments for LID and potential LID debt service are as follows: $/ESU/MONTH* Existing Basin Rate 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Westside: Basin 0 1.75 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 Mill Creek (Auburn) , Johnson Creek, Midway Creek & Mullen Slough (K,L,M,D,E,F,P & N) 1.76 2.27 2.70 2.82 2.95 3.09 3.16 Eastside: Mill Creek Upper (G) 4.38 7.01 7.81 8.15 8.23 8.31 8.35 Lower (A) 4.51 7.17 7.99 8.49 8.89 9.36 9.39 ULID 306 (Q) 2.23 4.93 5.75 5.84 5.95 6.05 6.10 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 2.98 4.23 4.65 4.75 4.87 4.99 5.05 Upper (J&I) 2.84 4.07 4.48 4.56 4.69 4.80 4.87 Direct (C) 2.11 3.36 3.79 4.47 4.92 5.44 5.49 Soos Creek (H) 1.75 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 * Includes 3.8% City utility tax plus LID debt service. The net financial impact of the proposed rate increase is summarized in Table 1-1. -7- Ln lf1 O O 0 0 0 0 cn M CO CO O N 2 O M M �O Ol ti �^-1 M M ko m Co a, M O L In U to LO 0 0 Ln O O 0 0 0 0 N O O n N O O LL'f Ln 0 0 N CO CO 10 Ltd M .--i LO I� N O O M V co OD .o N M M ^ �--1 p V to In O O 0 0 0 0 Y L N colp CT 1p V O ON O N r-1 mO a) 3 CO N to Oi l0 Q L O ri N M V 1� '�•I N M C h pLop p t1'1 11'f 0 0 O O O O O O n N O . lf. to O . f/7 L Qj. m CO tD t[1 M r1 Lo m 1� N O o N (7 v .--1 N M CO CO l0 N M ... m W O O O o O O O O O O O O O � O N ti p �p In L1') O O 0 0 0 0 O _ M N n O ail -It to V N O CO O, 1p N O Cr L!) O1 rl N ^' CO LO (7 M In n N J m Y � L CJ O OD Cc N Opt O N coO co C L L tD In N V• M tIl 1� � � N M � M LMfI n y r J m O O ri N i, L l0 O .--i tD �o O CT . N '-. Cl. . V' N C N N to Co d' N M ONi ^ 'ct N CJ G .--I ti Cl) LOt� rl LO N M r M 1l O m L N 0 0 a.� z u a m �y n M O CO lf1 t(t 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Y lL lP N �A l0 N N W rl O 1, M O Co n M CD L L Z U r � �N J h v Y 3 C d ti M CO .�-I CEO Oko M OON N •IA O O M M l0 Q1 .M-1 n^-1 M lko V M CO m t0 CAM 00 CO LO 111 0 0 O O O O N .-I N N Cl) Lo O ^ M-I CO N W 4F rT J O i1 U 'p U m O J L v L ® m L L H L m r > J N ~ > 0) O LL C O > 0p/1 C1 y O U C1 O L U U U Q N K O .+ Q ID colf1 •R � N •Q b W �8_ CHAPTER FINANCIAL CONDITION A summary of the financial status of the Sewerage Utility as of December 31, 1993 is presented via the balance sheets shown in Table 2-1. The Sewerage Utility as shown is a combined utility of the sewer and drainagae utilities. This combining was done only for the purpose of debt. The operating statement for the year ending December 31, 1993 is presented in Table 2-2. A 10 year history of the Utility's revenue bond coverage is shown in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 denotes the Utility's existing outstanding debt. All financial statements are reproduced from the City of Kent 1993 Comprehensive Financial Report as prescribed by the Washington State Auditor's Office for municipal corporations. Combined Utility As of December 31, 1994, the combined Utility's assets totaled $59.1 million with $9.7 million of total liabilities. Net income for the year ended December 31, 1993 after the addition of nonoperating revenue and operating transfers was $1.8 million. The overall financial strength of the combined utility is strong. -9- Table 2-1 Balance Sheet December 31, 1993 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and residual investments 83,979 Other investments, at cost 8,051,163 Receivables (Net) 1,131,114 . Accounts 69,333 Accrued interest 175,712 Accrued sales 644 Due from other governments 67 67 Inventory, at cost ,185 1,185 Prepaid expenses 360 Total Current Assets 9,594,490 Restricted Assets: For bond redemption: 18,684 Cash and Residual Investments Other Investments, at cost 208,561 For Bond Reserve:Cash and Residual Investments 3,413 gg5,413 Other Investments, 'at cost 965 Total Restricted Assets 1,116,623 Property, Plant and Equipment: Land 476,395 Buildings 77,182 Site Improvements 41,979,452 Other Capital Outlay 254,361 Less: Accumulation Depreciation (16,021,896 0430550) Construction In Progress Total Property, Plant and Equipment 48,378;736 TOTAL ASSETS 59,089,849 -10- LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY Current Liabilities: Vouchers Payable 165,444 Accrued Expenses 82,038 Total Current Liabilities 247,482 Current Liabilities Payable from Restricted Assets: Accrued Interest Payable 79,438 Contracts Payable, Current Portion 18,684 Bonds Payable, Current Portion 360,000 Total Current Liabilities Payable from Restricted Assets 458,122 Long-Term Liabilities: Compensated Absences Payable 9,396 Notes Payable 242,895 Bonds Payable 9,270,000 Less: Current Portion (360,000) Less: Unamortized Discount (172,363) Total Long-Term Liabilities 8,989,928 Total Liabilities 9,695,532 Fund Equity: Contributed Capital 30,629,577 Retained Earnings: Reserved for Debt Service 658,501 Unreserved 18,106,239 Total Fund Equity 49,394,317 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY 59,089,849 -11- Table 2-2 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earning For the Year Ended December 31, 1993 Operating Revenues: Charges for Services 11,653,047 Other Operating Revenue 542 Total Operating Revenues 11,653,589 Operating Expenses: Salaries and Wages 534,382 Benefits 175,268 Supplies 41,650 Services and Charges 7,822,867 Depreciation 1,027,266 Total Operating Expenses 9,601,433 Operating Income 2,052,156 Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) : Interest Income 644,188 Miscellaneous Non-Operating Revenue 42,142 Interest Income (416,235) Total Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses) 270,095 Income before Operating Transfers 2,322,251 Operating Transfers Out (204,165) Net Income before Extraordinary Loss 2,118,086 (Loss) on Early Debt Extinguishment (260,991) Net Income 1,857,095 Items not affecting Retained Earnings: Depreciation on Contributed Capital 604,950 Increase (Decrease) in Retained Earnings 2,462,045 Retained Earnings, January 1 16,375,408 Residual Equity Transfers Out (72,713) Retained Earnings, December 31 18,764,740 -12- N CP �MNndr-i CO 00 r0 M.--4 lD C))tD r-4 N d L . . N MI--dd Ln Ln Ln tD > U co O) N dO t\CO ri M IDN . -I r U r�t\N O M CO --I OO >> r0 p - --ID CO r�CC)N t\<DO r4- 4I .a > dd - - - - - - - - c O O (3) L --M O OI r�O LD r�r- O F-pN -Cl-Mdd �ddLO a) � ra N m d O r�00 r-I M LD N -O N N I�r�NOM00 r-i 0O L-L a) LO CO r�co N t-LD O �4� N MOO)NLn LD r�r-1 4 - 4� d N r-i r-I O O CO lD 'O r0 C MMMMNNCl) !_ r r0_0 N r0 OOOOOO N S= G1 000000 3•r •r OOOOOO (1)� U _ . . . _ . to •r d LO MM n tO CO 4N OU r-i.--1 r1 ri U N [1 II Q) r•i d M O 1-4 Ln N N Ln r-i 4- r0 r+) N N)Ln N m l-r��.D r•I N LO O N L •r.a U Ot\CC)rid MLnr-i On L O > >O > OCO M COm M Od Md V) M O Q L ID tl- m 00 r�Nd CO LD O L+) (, L Cl) CO t�CO NO NLn NMm r0 r0 N •t7 N 4-N r-I.--I N N(\j N N N M >) d. N C Z r O •� L O m M c::)CD r4 r�CO NO M Olm O r0 !✓ L 'A CO d r-i e-i O Ln t\O M •r N f- N •r (O r�e-H Ln M CO N N O m Cr) L C)) _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ D_ m r0 Ln V) CO M N lD cn m N O CO Ln .a N L N N mCON M CM d 1-4 CO r--IN L > N 7 N 1-1 r-i NL.n d d m M Lnd r0 _ R >) C (D x Li-j O C Z'W r•r Z S=v r6 U O tD Q)Om M,--IONmtD im •r 'I W CO O OO lO t�r�lfl a--) NCDNOLnCOC))Ot.DN r0 . _ . . _ . •r O Ln C7)Ln d O N CO U')t" r0 r0 U CO CSC 01 M Ln ,I-N O r�N C= M M Ln LD 110 t\00001 O (1)•r L 0) o Q. N M L O Ln Ln(Vd O N M I�I-_LD M C S✓ N OCOOONr�dLDMLn rn •r E w r-I CO O co r-i M M Oi d'I 4-) O - - S.- (0 U O .--I M N LD Ln M Ln Ln CO N 4) (D L r-J COMr�rnCOMC)C)QDLO 3 3 N r-I O O QI ON CO CO O N N p rt ri.•� ri.-+ N O N • M O r� )lO Mm MMr-i LOM -0"0 NCO C N CO m) 4- -1ONNMN-M =5 :3 •r M Lnmr-•IMCONMCDLO• r rr Crl U U N rho N Ln��Mdd t�O 4.0 li C C 0-C L. 0- N CO m r-_IDd CM r-L C)) O •r•r X•r Q X MN LOO to d O)O Md lO N N N O p Ln L,D t--d Ln M t\CO CO Ol -P i--r +-) N C C N V) O O N r0 O) Nd CO r" m Ln LD CO M m O O L N C N Q)CO d r-I(V M LO O)�.O OO E E N 4- •r = LD 00 r•i r-I M Ln r-i Ol C)Ln r0 r0 d-) N y C _ . . C•p t0 N ID I�C))O(:7)t\M d d M -•r L > ON LO r�d r�d N LD Ln Ln r� 47 c) 0) LO d a)co a'C)l N r-i M tD 00 co 0)-0 - p Ln t�co Ln LO lD CO m m r--/ r-1.-I ,... 4-4- 7 L O Or N r rn Lo X N r0 L N N dLn lO rim Q)O.-I NM to QQWN •r�• 00 co CO co 01)CO CT CL Ol m LL_ mmmmmCTM4710)m 'INMd Table 2.4 Sewerage Utilty Outstanding Long Term Debt Princial Interest Total 11/1 4.76%-7.4% 1994 378,684 471,447 850,131 1995 453,684 453,707 907,391 1996 478,684 431,620 910,304. 1997 498,684 406,943 905,627 1998 513,684 386,356 900,040 1999 528,684 363,895 892,579 2000 553,684 340,248 893,932 2001 578,684 314,648 893,332 2002 603,684 287,581 891,265 2003 628,684 258,729 887,413 2004 658,684 228,042 886,726 2005 683,684 195,216 878,900 2006 693,684 160,449 854,133 2007 293,684 124,487 418,171 2008 290,000 109,175 399,175 2009 305,000 93,225 398,225 2010 320,000 76,450 396,450 2011 340,00.0 58,850 398,850 2012 355,000 40,150 395,150 2013 375,000 20,625 395,625 Total 9,531,576 4,821,843 14,353,419 -14- CHAPTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Capital Improvement Program developed by the City of Kent for the storm drainage utility has been designed to both reduce flood potential and enhance water quality. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the Drainage Utility's Capital Improvement Program. Based on topography, drainage patterns and other factors, the utility's service area of approximately 12,697 acres has been divided into 17 distinct drainage basins (see Figure 1). Of all these basins, only those lying east and north of the Green River have been identified as needing major capital improvements. However, the Drainage Master Plan did identify that some degree of system improvements are needed in almost all basins. Table 3-1 sets forth the capital program that was developed in response to the utility's needs as taken from the Drainage Master Plan, the Water Quality Management Plan, and the Green River Management Plan. A majority of the projects shown are storage and water quality oriented and are needed to mitigate both the impacts of existing and future developments. s 1180 ST NORTH V SE wH 4 gie LO" SE 196 ST S 200 ST Is 200 ST 17" SE�208tST l 2 ul L—L L 4 SE 1216 ST $ 216 $T J;� 'n -FS 222 ST t i is 223 s SE 2A STI 11 ZT---T...... ?SE 227 F Aw. OUT Z40 ST ovr S-24 llt4 0 co 272 ST --or Lk,-- S 277 ST A 281 sT KENT DRAINAGE KENT DRAINAGE BASINS FIGURE 1 SERVICE AREA Table 3-1 1995 - 2000 Capital Improvement Program Storm Capital Projects Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Mill Creek (Auburn) & 100 120 120 340 Mullen Slough Flood Control Improvement Valley Detention 9,288 2,995 12,283 Mill Creek Flood & 1,500 1,500 Erosion Control Garrison Creek Flood 1,140 1,140 & Erosion Facilities Horseshoe Acre Storm 280 280 Pump Station Miscellaneous Drainage 150 378 393 409 425 442 2,197 Improvement Drainage Improvements in 265 865 500 418 507 2,555 -' Concert with Road Improvements 3rd Avenue Storm Trunk 280 280 Stream Restoration & 42 5 47 Streamside Tree Planting Storm Drainage Outfall 720 1,884 2,229 4,833 Treatment Facilities Total 11,265 4,363 3,013 2,793 3,072 949 25,455 -17- CHAPTER 4 FINANCING METHODS The purpose of this chapter is to present alternative methods and recommendations for the financing of the Drainage Master Plan. Methods considered include state and federal grant funds, pay-as-you-go financing, and long-term debt financing. Grants The following paragraphs describe the programs, both federal and state, that are currently providing grant funds for storm water projects. Department of Ecology In 1984 Substitute House Bill 1531 was passed creating a new State Flood Control Maintenance Program. Under this program matching funds (up to 50%) are available for projects related to maintaining normal and reasonable river/stream stability and alignment. $3,200,000 is anticipated to be available for the upcoming biennium which starts July 1, 1995. Because of the minimal amount of funds available state-wide, it is extremely doubtful that the City of Kent will realize any portion thereof. .Department of Housing_ and Urban Development. Under the Community Development Block Grant Program, HUD provides funds to communities that have concentrations of impoverished citizens and substandard housing to expand their low and moderate income housing opportunities and to meet community development needs. HUD provides grants of some $3 to $4 million each year to King County, which in turn distributes these funds to the 25 communities in the "King County urban consortium." The City of Kent is one of the communities in this consortium. Kent typically receives a yearly per capita allocation based on its low income population. The amount varies from year to year but past experience indicates it has been in the neighborhood of $231,000. It appears that some grant money for storm drainage improvements can be anticipated from HUD funds, but by and large, they will be insignificant in terms of the total need. J.S. Department of Agriculture. Under Public Law 566 (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1974) and with the sponsorship of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), construction funds could be available. However, as a practical matter, SCS sponsorship is highly unlikely. Due to budgetary cut-backs, SCS has recently pulled out of a Kent valley project that it has sponsored since 1965. As such, financial support therefrom is extremely doubtful. (corps of Engineers. Under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, the Chief of Engineers has the authority to construct small flood control projects that have not specifically been authorized by Congress. The federal participation is limited to $5,000,000. No projects within the capital improvement program of the drainage utility potentially meet the Corps funding criteria. Pay-As-You-Go Financing The City could elect to finance a portion of the capital improvement program from the accumulations of funds generated from rates. Typically, capital projects that are relatively minor in cost or regularly recurring are financed by pay-as-you-go financing methods. However, projects of sizeable cost magnitude that are non-recurring and/or have substantial design capacity for future system users are most appropriately financed via long-term debt. In this fashion, the project can be paid for by system users as they use the system rater than from revenue assessments to existing system users for the benefit of future users. Further, during inflationary periods, the value of the dollar erodes; therefore, the use of debt allows system users to pay for capital facilities over time in dollars that carry the depreciated value of money relative to the point in time which they are assessed costs via rates and charges. -19- Long -Term Deot Three types of long-term debt financing are available to the City. These include assessment bonds, general obligation bonds, and revenue bonds. Assessment (LID) Bonds, Assessment bonds are typically used to finance capital facilities that will benefit a discrete area. One-time assessments are assigned properties based on the benefits that will accrue to them. Assessment bonds-are secured by the properties assessed. Issuance costs are higher than other types of bonds because they require public notification to all property owners within the assessment area, public hearings, and usually costly engineering and legal expense associated with the assessment spread. Projects like those proposed in the capital improvement program do not lend themselves to assessment bond financing because: a. Issuance costs are high; b. The difficulty in establishing the benefit relationship to individual properties, particularly the developed Upland properties. General Obligation Bonds. General Obligation (G.O.) bonds can be repaid either with an ad valorem tax levy, or, if bond proceeds were used for utility facility construction, with system user charge revenue. These bonds are therefore secured by the full faith credit of the issuing agency, as well as system revenues. Consequently, interest costs are lower than for other types of debt financing, as much as 60 basis points (6/10 of 1 percent) below the yields which could be expected from revenue bonds. Councilmanic G.O. bonds can be issued by authorization of the City Council, subject to the constraint that the current principal outstanding is limited to 1.5 percent of the assessed value within the City's corporate limits. Currently, the City has $44 million in additional councilmanic G.O. bond capacity. -20- In addition to councilmanic bonds, G.O. debt can be issued upon authorization by the City's electorate. It is necessary to place the measure before the public for 60 percent ratification by those voting in the election. To achieve such a margin can be expensive in terms of public relations programs, plus the long lead time necessary to schedule the bond election. This latter point is particularly critical during inflationary periods in which project costs can rise substantially and more than offset the nominal savings that G.O. bonds can achieve through lower interest rates and reserve/coverage requirements. One difficulty herein is that the improvements are paid by everybody including those who are not specifically benefiting therefrom. Revenue Bonds Revenue bonds are serviced and secured by the revenues generated through utility operations. Advantages of revenue bonds include ease of authorization by the City Council without a bond election, no ad valorem tax security requirements, and the capacity to recover associated debt service costs from users in proportion to the benefits accorded thereto. Disadvantages include slightly higher interest costs, which can range up to 1 percent, and debt coverage requirements that require the accumulation of revenues in excess of total annual expenditure needs as a guarantee to bond investors that the debt can be serviced adequately. Utility activities have traditionally been financed by revenue bonds. Recommended Financing It is proposed that the drainage utility capital improvements identified be financed using a combination of generated cash and revenue bond financing. Total construction costs of$12,377,000 are financed from revenue bonds. It is proposed that the revenue bonds be sold in five series scheduled during the year indicated in Table 4-1. The total issue is estimated to be $12,766,000. The bonds are assumed to have 20 year terms, except for the 1996 issue which will bear an interest rate of 9 percent per annum, uniform debt service, and bear an interest rate of S percent per annum. Issuance costs, including legal and engineering, are estimated to be 3 percent of the face value. -21- Annual Debt Service & Bond Coverage Total debt service associated with the bond issue will average $1,554,200 during the study period and level out at $1,892,000 at the end of 1999 as represented in Table 4-2. Because of the competitiveness for capital by utilities and with the national average thereof for bond coverage being 2.00, the coverage factor established for the 1995 (1.85) issue is determined adequate by the City's financial consultants. Table 4-3 reflects the net operating revenue required to continue to meet said coverage factor. -22- Table 4.1 Estimate of Proposed Six-Year Capital Improvement Bonding Requirements ($1,000) Less: Net Total Par Construction Available Bonding Issuance Amount of Year Cost Funds Requirements Cost (c) Bond Issue 1995 11,265 931 (a) 10,334 310 10,644 1996 4,363 1,189 (b) 3,174 95 3,269 1997 3,013 1,417 (b) 1,596 54 1,650 1998 2,793 1,555 (b) 1,238 45 1,283 1999 3,072 1,647 (b) 1,425 466 1,4711 2000 949 949 (b) 0 Total 25,455 7,688 17,767 550 18,317 (a) Reflects the dollar amount already approved and budgeted in the 1995 Capital Budget. (b) Estimated net operating revenues available from the prior year after payment of bond debt service and after funding the bond reserve fund as required. (c) A total of approximately 3% of the par amount is for the bond discount and bond issuance costs. -23- Table 4-2 Proposed Debt Service Bond Issues 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Principal Amount $10,644 $3,269 $1,650 $1,283 $1,471 Dated 3/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 First Principal 3/95 1/96 1/97 1/98 1/99 Maximum Annual Debt Service $1,084 $358 $169 $131 $150 One-Fifth Maximum Annual Debt Service $217 $72 $34 $26 $30 Cummulative Total - Annual Debt Service $1,442 $1,611 $1,742 $1,892 -24- Y N Ip C L 41 L A T Y y L � Y C N L L w C N C O r 7 Y N Y O • A N p L N d E Yo CW 0A C C L N A rl N > C Y Y O 'pN T d w C C � C N L K LA Y Y 4- C W N U U p Z A V A C N Q N S d ,Q 3p •r > L L ' E C CD C Vr- w N N W C O Y Fj• d E X r Y Y 0 H U U U D II Gf (L) N CI m O r1 CI m CI CI m CI O N 1� CI m m CI CII CI t0 N Q) Im CI U CT CO com 0) co co CO OJ CO co CI m N N N N N N N t� Q' �' M t`7 Y R .p > N N N N N �~-1 M N L N O N > N U r1 O I� n t\ O Cl to ['7 V N to a Cl �t t0 t") tD t0 t0 l0 O N [C N C CGI A N th tD O VIr .-� •--1 CO N to CT .--� C7 Ln LA LI'I Ln LA tf] C7 1� N CO O 111 1� =O Y CI Lo CO CI O .-� m m V V' V to CI CI m (n CI m M m 1l CO O .--I t0 E A d a) rl �--1 '-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q r U O Y > i y > i d Z Q 4- C (") ^ m m CI m N O tp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0ON ri m N <t t0 CI to C'1 co = v N N I7 C7 m U- N N N Y N > •r N L N J N O N (1 3 ON N 1� N Cn m In fh Ct T .-t tD O '-'� O CO m CD 00 N CO O co O O N d rl �. a0 m 00 pp n n n .--1 OI Cl . . N 00 CT O qlt CO 1f1 � fn Y Q7 t`7 m l0 f\ n n n t\ t\ t` n m N N N N N N CO W V' N .--I Cl) p N rl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N [b ti > N N N N N N N N N N N N N . mCt CT DO O rl O O O pip• .y CT CI Ol CT CT CI m mm CI CI CI O to co Un O tC t� CO m [O a0 oD O ao W O O m [O W m c0 CO CD C' N .--I co aCi 3 z w xW .-y rt �--i .-� .-� .--i .--� r+ .--i r+ .-+ .-a .•+ �--i �--i .•. '-I �--i m > O v Q C? CLJ� O K V" C n O t0 O (") C7 '•1 n n OI sf CD CI O t0 CI Ill to O O O O O O NO CI CT m 2pp r\ C() rl m CI m m CI Ct � N iT+ C Y Ct OI M CI O M C9 N CO CO m a0 C I7 t�I C7 c7 CAI t`l m � m X OI Cii O CI co W C y w U t0 co m t0 t0 t0 t0 aD tp ? C - - - - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .--� •'-� rI +"� m Y N > fh d' 'C Ln m In 111 LCI In Ln III m Ln l.[I In In Ln Ln Ill to Ln O D F A N N > cu � m Q � E y t0 pI C W C O CD CI M In N O O r• rl rt r1 rl 01 m m CI m O CI.n Cl) N .-1 rl .--I rl .--I r•-1 .--� N r1 r-1 y > N L U L N i 7 N W L N Y G N 0 C L U LL Y A C - C O ti y r 0 Op N N N N N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N O Ln Ln a0 In U) lfl U) to Ul m to 111 IIl tIl Ln In tll LLl III Ifs to lI1 1n lfl 1� C t0 C'I t0 00 �"'� �"I r1 r1 r1 �-•1 r1 e-1 r-i rl r-i ri rl rI r1 I r"I � rl ri 1� N Y M tII In Ln Ln In tII III to tP LA Ln to In LA Ln In m III In III to N eY0 N y�Ll1 ~ yI Q O tlI V W Ag a . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000000 0 � � .y .-.i ra .•I rl .-� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1-- N W OC CHAPTER 5 DRAINAGE UTILITY USER AND BASIN CHARACTERISTICS The purpose of this chapter is to present characteristics of contributors (users) and basins which influence the extent and timing of facility improvements and the operation and maintenance expenses attendant to ongoing utility operations. The contributor and basin characteristics that will be considered include: 1. The total amount of impervious surface and single family dwellings as a basis to provide for recovery of general system operation and maintenance expenses. 2. Logistics of impervious surface and single family dwellings per the respective drainage basins as a basis to predict basin needs and to recover capital and operating costs thereof. Factors that affect these characteristics are population growth, density and type of development (land sue) and the economic health of the region. Contributor/User Classes The Drainage Utility contributors (users) are classified into the following two major categories: 1. Single family residential parcel. 2. All other developed parcels. The definition of a single family residential parcel is any parcel of land having on it a dwelling unit which is designed for occupancy by one family or a similar group of people. -26- When the drainage utility was first implemented in 1984, a sampling of single family residential parcels within the City was done. It was determined that a single family residential parcel contains an average of 2500 square feet of impervious surface. This then became the equivalent service unit (EUS) on which all other developed parcels are measured. Originally, single family residential ESU's were determined by obtaining the number of garbage billing accounts. This was felt as an accurate reflection of the total number of residential units because the City mandates garbage service. Their logistics with respect to the appropriate basin were accomplished through physically counting via aerial photos. The ESU's for all other developed parcels, and their logistics per appropriate basin, was originally accomplished by using aerial photos flown December 1983. These were then both computer merged with assessor maps (depicting property lines) and basin boundary maps whereupon the impervious surface on each parcel was then measured. To keep this data base current, as permits are issued for new development they are also logged into the system. Based on City building permit records (See Figure 2), the City's developmental growth has been significant. Because there still exists within the City a sufficient amount of land that can be developed and additional areas are continuing to annex, growth of the ESU base can reasonably be expected to occur over the next five years. For the purpose of developing this financial plan, a conservative growth rate of approximately 1/2 percent per year was used. Table 5-1 reflects same. In determining the service rate associated with the proposed capital improvement program the individual basins were reviewed for growth potential and the growth then distributed accordingly. (Table 5-2) -27- The definition of a developed parcel is any parcel of land which has been altered in any way by removal of vegetation by grading of the ground surface or by construction of a structure or other impervious surface which affects the hydraulic properties of the parcel. For such parcels the equivalent service unit thereof is determined by physically measuring the total area of impervious surface and dividing the results by 2500.. Where these parcels' impervious surface coverage exceed 40%, the following impact factors are multipliers to their equivalent service unit. Percent of Impervious Impact Service Area per Parcel Factor Greater than 40 to 60 or less 12 Greater than 60 to 80 or less 1.4 Greater than 80 to 100 or less 1.6 Equivalent Service Units (ESUI Total equivalent service units within the City for the two major categories are as follows: Categories Total ESU's Single Family Residential Parcel 6,055 All Other Developed Parcel 87,296 Grand Total 93,351 -28- I i i i i i i i CD N ' O 0 T- W O �co co /NO 1 ' ' LLJ O C) ' I F W 1 co Q N O I i i I I I OCO Q 0 Opt' O O O 00 CD 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2JvTlOa -29- Table 5-1 Estimate of Future ESU's 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total ESU (a) 93,351 93,818 94,285 94,752 95,219 95,686 (a) 0.5% growth rate per year (straight line) equals 467 ESU's per year. In terms of developed acres, this represents 25 acres per year. Table 5-2 Total ESU's per Basin Westside (Basins M,L,K) 4,130 Basins O,P,N,D,E,F 6,645 Direct Discharge (Basin C) 5,780 Mill Creek (Basin G) 9,021 (Basin A) 37,540 (Basin Q) 8,341 Soos Creek (Basin H) 717 Garrison Creek (Basin B) 15,601 (Basin I & X 5,576 TOTAL 93,351 -30- CHAPTER DRAINAGE UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this chapter is to identify annual revenue requirements which relate to the provision of plant and equipment and the operation and maintenance thereof to provide drainage service to all customers. Capital revenue requirements are developed from drainage utility budget data using the cash basis. Capital Revenue Requirements Capital-related expense of a utility can be calculated using the cash method or the utility enterprise method. Each method recovers different cost components as summarized below: Cash Basis Utility Enterprise Basis Debt service (repayment of principal and interest) Depreciation Capital investment and/or Return on capital (profit reserve accruals from on equity investment plus current revenue. interest on debt) Cash Basis. Revenue requirements using the cash method represent the direct cash needs associated with the ongoing costs of the utility. For the drainage utility, these include capital additions funded from current revenues, annual debt service, and accruals to cash reserves. Using the cash basis implies that equity has been contributed by utility customers as required. Thus, a rate of return on equity capital is not considered a revenue requirement under this method. The capital-related revenue requirements for the period 1995 through 2000 are shown in Table 6-1. -31- �perafinn and Maintenance Revenue Requirements Operating expenses for the study period were projected by combining historical costs with anticipated service and program enhancement costs to project an 0&M budget. Once the individual yearly expenses were determined they were then escalated at a rate of 4 percent to account for inflation and increased demands on the system. Table 6-2 summarizes these costs. Annual Revenue Requirements The total annual revenue requirements for the drainage utility are summarized below: M&O CIP Year 1000 1000 TA 1995 2,009 3,683 5,692 1996 2,089 43351 63440 1997 2,173 4,656 6,829 1998 2,260 41888 7,148 1999 2.350 51152 7,502 2000 2,444 51152 7,596 -32- Table 6-1 Capital Revenue Requirements — Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Existing: Debt Service 907 910 906 900 893 894 Cash for 1.85 (a) Coverage Factor 771 773 770 765 759 T60 Subtotal 1,678 1,683 1,676 1,665 1,652 1,654 New: Debt Service (b) 1,084 1,442 1,611 1,742 1,892 1,892 Cash for CIP (d) 921 1,226 1,369 1,481 1,608 1,608 Subtotal 2,005 2,668 2,980 3,223 3,500 3,500 Grand Total (c) 3,683 4,351 4,656 4,888 5,152 5,154 (a) Represents the cash needs associated with the 1.85 debt service coverage. (b) From Table 4-2. (c) Estimated net operating revenue from Table 4-3. (d) Reflects the cash needs to achieve the debt sevice coverage factor denoted in Table 4-3 (estimated net after 0&M operating revenue less existing debt less existing debt cash for 1.85 coverage factor less new debt = cash for CIP) . -33- O M 'N-i O c0 C) rh O Ol kO N N Ol h co O O m CD U') m Q) lt0 M M M c0 ri lD O d O) ri Q1 M N N N `-I N U C to C C oll � m m M c0 Ln N ,--1 C Ol M t0 N 'II co C T O O� c+ 00 n � 110 c0 C O) m 00 Ln M N CDO� � N N io U t0 N }-) O N O 0 0 Lo co� p Ln O \ coLn M N O N U 0 0 O co Cl- 0_ - N N CO -0 Lid fa =M lD C E.Y O) .--1 co �Q r N t0 LIJ U c0 (TI L =M N p = U-) N m h _ V) U r1 •r Q N d 0 N •r C r N to r X- N U LtJ N L-•O C C 0 E C C O � U N C U U +�) 4-) 0 t0 Q T O ro C 0.0 rp r •r L r fn•r C 7 E'r' C (0 N d••) •V ro L 4-3 N 0 =3•N ci C 0_ •ram •r N E U L C O� L C O L C C 0 t0 0•r L-0 41— L r N 'E� N LOf 'O rOO� to 0 Q U to = 3 M- -34— CHAPTER DRAINAGE UTILITY - COST OF SERVICE ALLOCATION It is the City's intent that the costs associated with the drainage utility be allocated back to those properties specifically benefiting therefrom. As such, the cost of the capital improvements are to be charged back to those properties within the particular benefiting basin. Water quality enhancement, maintenance or administration projects are regarded as a general improvement; and therefore, the costs are proposed to be shared on a City- wide basis. Similarly, the cost of those improvements falling under the miscellaneous category or portions of specific improvements having City-wide benefit are proposed to be shared City-wide. The costs of the maintenance and operation budget is to be shared on a City-wide basis. Allocation Approach The projects of the Capital Improvement Program are first assigned to their respective benefiting basin (See Table 7-1). The respective debt service and required coverage is then allocated to the benefited basin based on the percentage relationship of the improvement costs to the total capital improvement costs of that year (See Tables 7-2 and 7-3). Similarly the existing Debt Service and respective coverage was, as reflected in Table 7-4, allocated to its respective benefiting basin. Total Annual Cost Allocation A summarization of all costs to the benefiting basin is given in Table 7-5. -35- Table 7-1 Project Description Benefiting Basin Mill Creek (Auburn) & K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B Mullen Slough Flood Control Improvement Valley Detention A,G & ALL* Mill Creek Flood & A & G Erosion Control Garrison Creek Flood B,I & J & Erosion Facilities Horseshoe Acre Storm C Pump Station Miscellaneous Drainage ALL Improvement Drainage Improvements in ALL Concert with Road Improvements 3rd Avenue Storm Trunk C Stream Restoration & ALL Streamside Tree Planting Storm Drainage Outfall C & A Treatment Facilities * $2,500,000 of total project costs assigned to all basins do to the project's regional park aspects. -36- Table 7-2 Percentage Relationship of Basin Projects to Total CIP Benefiting Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B 0.9% 2.8% 4.0% _ A & G 60.5% 33.9% 49.8% Q 10.8% 6.1% B, I & J 10.1% C 2.5% 9.3% ALL 15.2% 57.3% 13.0% 32.5% 27.4% 100.0% C & A 23.9% 67.5% 72.6% Table 7-3 Allocation of Debt Service and Coverage to Benefiting Basin Benefiting Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B 17,798 18,235 12,426 A & G 1,213,323 224,900 155,327 Q 217,320 40,269 B, I & J 202,903 C 49,836 28,994 ALL 303,820 379,595 40,696 79,086 76,013 C & A 74,557 163,914 200.987 Total 2,005,000 663,000 312,000 243,000 277,000 0 -37- Table 7-4 Allocation of Existing Debt Service and Coverage to Benefiting Basin Benefiting Basin 1995 K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B 4,185 C,Q,A & B 101,862 A & G 1,205,076 B, I & J 244,384 C 14,232 A 1,339 ALL 106,922 Total 1,678,000 Table 7-5 Cost Summarization by Benefiting Basin Benefiting Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 K,L,M,D,E,C,Q,A & B 21,983 40,231 52,640 52,613 52,580 52,585 C,Q,A & B 101,862 102,166 101,741 101,073 100,284 100,405 A & G 2,418,399 2,646,890 2,797,189 2,789,288 2,779,955 2,781,390 Q 217,320 257,589 257,589 257,589 257,589 257,589 B, I & J 447,287 448,015 446,996 445,394 443,500 443,792 C 64,068 64,110 93,045 92,952 92,841 92,858 C & A 0 0 74,557 238,471 439,458 439,458 A 1,339 1,343 1,337 1,329 1,318 1,320 ALL (CIP) 410,742 790,656 830,906 909,291 984,475 982,603 ALL (M&0) 2,009,000 2,089,000 2,173,000 2,260,000 2,350,000 2,444,000 Total 5,692,000 6,440,000 6,829,000 7,148,000 7,502,000 7,596,000 -38- CHAPTER DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES The Rate Structure The City's rate structure is a two-tiered monthly charge. The first tier of the service charge is a variable charge for each parcel of property. The variable charge is dependent upon the number of equivalent service units (ESU). An equivalent service unit equals 2500 sq. feet of impervious surface which is the average for single family residential parcel sin Kent. All single family residential parcels are declared equal to one ESU. Thus, the first tier of the service charge is the same for all single family residential parcels. That charge is equal to the cost per ESU as determined by the financial needs of the utility. This first tier of the service charge varies for all other, non-residential parcels. The charge is based upon the number of ESU's. The number of ESU's equals the total square footage of impervious service, as actually measured, divided by 2500. The service charge for non-residential parcel is then equal to the total number of ESU's multiplied by the cost per ESU. Also, the amount of the service charge for non-residential parcels is increased through the use of an imperviousness factor. The purpose of this "Factor" or multiplier is to increase the charge per parcel as the percentage of impervious surface to total surface area increases, I.E. the higher the percentage of impervious area the higher the charge. The basis for this adjustment is increase probability of service water runoff entering the storm drainage system as the percentage of impervious area increases. In other words, -39- as the percentage of impervious surface area to total surface area increases, the volume of runoff increases. The contribution to the problem of runoff is greater and, therefore, the service charge should be higher. The City's Imperviousness factors are listed below by percentage classes. Impervious surface/ total surface (IS1TS ratio). Percentage of IS/TS Impervious Area Ratio Imperviousness Factor 1-20 .1 1* 21-40 .3 1 41-60 .5 1.2 61-80 .7 1.4 81-100 .8 1.6 *Imperviousness factor cannot be less than one. The second tier of the service charge is special assessments for capital projects or other improvements or services which benefit only a specific segment of utility customers, i.e. the improvements do not benefit all of the customers within the utility service area. Examples include an LID or a surcharge added to a customer's bill to finance a basin-specific facility such as a collector or regional retention pond. Each of the two elements of the tiered service charge have different purposes. The sources and intended uses are listed below. Tier 1 — Variable Charge Administration and engineering, based on number of ESU's planning, regulation, operation and maintenance and capital cost of system-wide improvements. Tier 2 — Special Assessments Basin-specific capital improvements, studies or extraordinary maintenance. The formula for computing annual rates under the rate structure is: Basic annual charge per ESU x number of ESU's (per parcel) x Imperviousness factor = annual rate (per parcel) Where: -40- Equivalent Service Unite (ESUI = Average square feet of impervious area for single family residential parcels imperviousness factor = a multiplier which upwardly adjusts the charges per ESU to reflect the hydraulic impact of the extent of imperviousness; i.e., the higher the percentage of impervious area, the larger the multiplier, and thus, the higher the charge per ESU. Tier 1 Charge (Basic Charge) The costs included in the first tier service charge are those of the M&O budget, and those of the capital improvement program categorized as general (ALL). Table 8-1 reflects these costs. The first tier service charge is then simply the total cost divided by the total ESU's. Table 8-2 reflects this. Tier 2 Service Charge (Basin Specific Charge) The second tier service charge (basin specific charge) is predicated on the respective capital improvement associated with each basin. The sum thereof is then divided by the total ESU's within each basin. This then is the service charge. Table 8-3 depicts the service charge associated with each basin. The final service charge rate is then the summation of the basic charge plus the basin specific charge. Table 8-4 gives a summary of the charges by basin. -41- Local Improvement District Assessments Specific properties owned by the utility are either encumbered by outstanding Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) assessments or are anticipated to be so. The property associated with the Valley Detention is one such property. Table 8-5 reflects the existing and proposed L.I.D. assessments thereon and rate impact thereof. _ Table 8-6 then summarizes the proposed final rates which include the L.I.D. debt. Economic Impacts of Proposed Rates The dollar amount of the proposed rate increase in 1995 varies from basin to basin as shown on Table 8-7 and ranges from a low of $.49 to a high of $2.70. The financial impact to the system users for the proposed 1995 rate increase is given in Table 8-8. -42- Table 8-1 First Tier Cost ($1,000) Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 M & 0 (a) 2,009 2,089 2,173 2,260 2,350 2,444 CIP (ALL) 411 791 831 909 984 983 Total 2,420 2,880 3,004 3,169 3,334 3,427 (a) From Table 6-2 Table 8-2 First Tier Service Charge 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 - Total Cost ($/Year) 2,420,000 2,880,000 3,004,000 3,169,000 3,334,000 3,427,000 Total ESU (a) 93,351 93,818 94,285 94,752 95,219 95,686 $/ESU/Year 25.92 30.70 31.86 33.45 35.01 35.82 $/ESU/Month 2.16 2.56 2.66 2.79 2.92 2.98 (a) From Table 5-1 -43- Table 8-3 Basin Specific Charge Benefiting Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mill Creek (Auburn) 21.98 40.23 52.64 52.61 52.58 52.58 Total ESU 75,485 75,862 76,239 76,615 76,991 77,366 $/ESU/Year 0.291 0.530 0.690 0.687 0.683 0.680 $/ESU/Month 0.024 0.044 0.058 0.057 0.057 0.057 Valley ($1,000) 101.86 102.17 101.74 101.07 100.28 100.41 Total ESU 67,262 67,599 67,937 68,277 68,618 68,961 $/ESU/Year 1.514 1.511 1.498 1.480 1.461 1.456 $/ESU/Month 0.126 0.126 0.125 0.123 0.122 0.121 Mill Creek ($1,000) 2,418.40 2,646.89 2,797.19 2,789.29 2,779.96 2,781.39 Total ESU 46,561 46,794 47,028 47,264. 47,501 47,738 $/ESU/Year 51.940 56.565 59.479 59.015 58.524 58.264 $/ESU/Month 4.328 4.714 4.957 4.918 4.877 4.855 Garrison Creek ($1,000) ($1,000) 447.29 448.01 447.00 445.39 443.50 443.79 Total ESU 21,177 21,283 21,389 21,496 21,603 21,712 $/ESU/Year 21.121 21.050 20.898 20.720 20.530 20.440 $/ESU/Month 1.760 1.754 1.742 1.727 1.711 1.703 South of Willis ($1,000) 64.07 64.11 93.05 92.95 92.84 92.86 Total ESU 5,780 5,809 5,838 5,867 5,896 5,925 $/ESU/Year 11.084 11.036 15.938 15.843 15.746 15.672 $/ESU/Month 0.924 0.920 1.328 1.320 1.312 1.306 Mill Creek 1 & Horshoe Acre Treatment ($1,000) 74.56 238.47 439.46 439.46 Total ESU 43,755 43,974 44,194 44,414 $/ESU/Year 1.704 5.423 9.944 9.895 $/ESU/Month 0.142 0.452 0.829 0.825 Mill Creek Cleanup ($1,000) 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.32 Total ESU 37,540 37,728 37,917 38,107 38,298 38,489 $/ESU/Year 0.036 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.034 $/ESU/Month 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 Valley Detention ($1,000) 217.32 257.59 257.59 257.59 257.59 257.59 Total ESU 8,341 8,383 8,425 8,467 8,509 8,552 $/ESU/Year 26.054 30.728 30.574 30.423 30.273 30.120 $/ESU/Month 2.171 2.561 2.548 2.535 2.523 2.510 -44- -... ......_....� . ..__ _.....e.. .. ........ . . ..... - Table 8-4 Summary of Service by Basin $/ESU/MONTH* Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Westside: Basin 0 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 Mill Creek (Auburn) , Johnson Creek, Midway Creek & Mullen Slough K,L,M,D,E,F,P & N 2.27 2.70 2.82 2.95 3.09 3.16 Eastside: Mill Creek Upper (G) 6.74 7.55 7.90 8.00 8.09 8.14 Lower (A) 6.89 7.73 8.24 8.66 9.14 9.18 ULID 306 (Q) 4.65 5.49 5.59 5.71 5.83 5.89 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 4.23 4.65 4.75 4.87 4.99 5.05 Upper (J&I) 4.07 4.48 4.56 4.69 4.80 4.87 Direct (C) 3.36 3.79 4.47 4.92 5.44 5.49 Soos Creek (H) 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 * 3.8% is included in the service charge. -45- Table 8-5 LID Debt Service 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LID 330 Improvement ($1,000) 95 91 86 82 77 73 64th Avenue Frontage (Estimated $500,000 Assessment) - Debt & 85% Coverage ($1,000) 176 168 159 152 142 135 Total ESU's 54,902 55,177 55,453 55,731 56,010 56,290 Benefiting Basins (A,G & Q) Debt & Coverage $/ESU/Year 3.21 3.04 2.87 2.73 2.54 2.40 $/ESU/Month 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 Table 8-6 Summary of Service by Basin $/ESU/MONTH* Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Westside: Basin 0 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 Mill Creek (Auburn) , Johnson Creek, Midway Creek & Mullen Slough (K,L,M,D,E,F,P & N) 2.27 2.70 2.82 2.95 3.09 3.16 Eastside: Mill Creek Upper (G) 7.01 7.81 8.15 8.23 8.31 8.35 Lower (A) 7.17 7.99 8.49 8.89 9.36 9.39 ULID 306 (Q) 4.93 5.75 5.84 5.95 6.05 6.10 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 4.23 4.65 4.75 4.87 4.99 5.05 Upper (J&I) 4.07 4.48 4.56 4.69 4.80 4.87 Direct (C) 3.36 3.79 4.47 4.92 5.44 5.49 Soos Creek (H) 2.24 2.66 2.76 2.89 3.03 3.10 * 3.8% is included in the service charge. -46- Table 8-7 Proposed Service Rate Increase 1995 & 1996 1995 1996 Basin Increase Increase Westside: Basin 0 0.49 0.42 Mill Creek (Auburn) , Johnson Creek, Midway Creek & Mullen Slough K,L,M,D,E,F,P & N 0.51 0.43 Eastside: Mill Creek Upper (G) 2.63 0.80 Lower (A) 2.66 0.82 ULID 306 (Q) 2.70 0.82 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 1.25 0.42 Upper (J&I) 1.23 0.41 Direct (C) 1.25 0.43 Soos Creek (H) 0.49 0.42 -47- cn M n O N Ln to 0 0 0 0 0 0 M co coO t0 M n O N N N O L O M M 10 O M .Mi .n-I M V ko t`�') LD Chi M e-1 to U O U'f 0 0 In Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 y N O n N 0 0 n N 0 0 Ln In 0 0 CO CO LD N tom') V 00 � en-1 0:) to N M Ln C$ o O O O O 07 CO Ln �7 M Ch M V' N l0 O tD V L O L--i e-i N M �t n CO .m.L N Cl) U J G 'O y l.[L O Ln to O O Ln !n O O O O C)to 0 O L N p n N 0 0 n N 0 0 In 0 N L C. m .-a m co LD Ln Lff to n N O O y d .--I N M �' lb .N-1 O Ln m N C7 A W O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ^ co C,Ol .--L O Lp In l O O 0 0 0 0 M N n QD L!') 'C Ln 00 d lT �-1 O l0 N 0 .-i .-� M In n N mCl) L Ln Lp J Y U N N W O p Oi O 'R N C:) O co L a)L LD Ln N C fCi U 3 a^ LV n co < M V C-; N ID N tD Ln N co Cl r O �' M In n en-1 N � m LLO n y r J C � Cp 9 L M M r-i p lt'1 to O O O O O O m a) Y L m co V' .--I \O LD O cn O N .--I C, O nr H C LU ^ 00 'IrN M N O Cl) 07 ti LD t0 N C O d N .y M Ln n 'n.{ N Cl) Cl) Ln n m L N r d v 0 O y 2 U LO .--I � n M p co Ln Ln O O p p p C7 O. ^ Ly Ln N to t0 N N 00 N O r n M 0 CO r N C W O M M LD O � Ln n ml�O N0 L L O v J vyi � Y at 3 ON CD O O O O O C .� r1 C.) co Cp O Lp O p M n O N in C:) O M C_; LD Cn .M-1 .nt Cl) � LO b OOi Cl) A ti m CO In Ln O O 0 0 0 0 N .-1 N N M LO O n ti N 00 W y > J + } t J � U- C p J j pN 'a LL CD U a) U L U U U •� lY 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a O O o xo CD CD CDO p� CD, LD 00 Ln Q '-1 �-1 '-I tt' ti '-T LD W -48- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a six year Capital Improvement Plan for the City' s drainage utility, establishing budgets and authorizing the sale of storm drainage revenue bonds . WHEREAS, the City desires to establish a comprehensive program for the City' s drainage utility by establishing rate modifications and a new Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, a budget for the Capital Improvement Plan must be established to incorporate the drainage utility program; and WHEREAS, incorporated into the drainage utility program are rate modifications to the storm and surface water utility; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section I. In order to implement a comprehensive drainage utility and Capital Improvement Program for storm drain improvements, the following actions are hereby approved and authorized: A. Adoption of a six year Capital Improvement Plan for the drainage utility set forth in Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference . B. Adoption of the first and second years , capital improvements and the budgets established for the same, as set forth in Exhibit A. C. Adoption of an ordinance modifying drainage utility rates and adjusting the budget to reflect the same . D. Authorization for the Finance Manager to establish interim financing as needed for the first and second years ' improvements . E.. Authorization for the Finance Manager to proceed with a program for sale of storm drainage revenue bonds . 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 2 ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1995 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK drainage.res 3 Table 3-1 1995 - 2000 Capital Improvement Program Storm Capital Projects Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total Mill Creek (Auburn) & 100 120 120 340 Mullen Slough Flood Control Improvement Valley Detention 9,288 2,995 12,283 Mill Creek Flood & 1,500 1,500 Erosion Control Garrison Creek Flood 1,140 1,140 & Erosion Facilities Horseshoe Acre Storm 280 280 Pump Station Miscellaneous Drainage 150 378 393 409 425 442 2,197 Improvement Drainage Improvements in 265 865 500 418 507 2,555 Concert with Road Improvements 3rd Avenue Storm Trunk 280 280 Stream Restoration & 42 5 47 Streamside Tree Planting Storm Drainage Outfall 720 1,884 2,229 4,833 Treatment Facilities Total 11,265 4,363 3,013 2,793 3,072 949 25,455 EXHIBIT -17- ill ' 1! I ! i ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the storm and surface water utility, changing the rate charged by the City storm and surface water utility to its customers for service, amending Kent City Code (KCC) 7 . 05 . 090 (previously enacted as Sections 7 . 20 . 010, . 030, . 160 and . 210) . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . K. C. C. 7 . 05 . 090 is amended to read as follows : Sec. 7 . 05 . 090 . System of charges . A. There is hereby imposed a system of charges on each parcel of real property within the city served by or to which is . available for service the storm and surface water utility established by this chapter. The charges are found to be reasonable j and necessary to fund administration, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, improvement, and (! replacement of all existing and future storm and surface water facilities, including the accumulation of reserves and the li retirement of any associated debt . i �i i 1' ;I �i .I �f B. The following charges are hereby established for all iiparcels of real property in the city: �I j Residential parcels: Effective ATril 1 1995 , 'itThe single-family residential charge rate shall be two ene dollars !' and twenty-four -` F'-" cents ( ($2 . 24) �--7) per month for r each parcel having one (1) residential dwelling plus the basin- l! specific charge of subsection B . 4 . below. Effective January 1 . 1996 the single-family residential rate shall chancre . to two dollars and sixty-six cents (52 66) per month for each parcel having one residential dwelling plus the basic specific charge of KCC 7 . 05 . 090 (B) (4) . 2 . Agricultural and undeveloped parcels : Agricultural parcels shall be charged the monthly residential parcel rate . Undeveloped parcels shall not be charged. 3 . Other parcels: a. The charge for all other parcels except residential parcels, agricultural parcels and undeveloped parcels shall be based upon: (1) The total amount of impervious surface as expressed in equivalent surface units (an equivalent service unit has been determined to be two thousand five hundred (2 , 500) square feet of impervious surface or any fraction thereof) ; and (2) The percentage of impervious surface area on each parcel . i 2 _.. i II I i� iI i i b. The charge for all such parcels shall be i 11computed: i; (1) By multiplying the total number of ; ESU' s on each by the appropriate parcel impervious multiplier; and (2) Multiplying the results by the sum of i' the single-family residential rate and the appropriate basin- specific charge . C . Impervious multipliers are hereby ; established: (1) Percentage of Impervious impervious area multiplier per parcel (impervious surface/total surface x 100) 1 to 40 1 41 to 60 1 . 2 61 to 80 1 . 4 81 to 100 1 . 6 3 I �i f; (2) Impervious multipliers correlate the ' hydraulic impact of a parcel to its percentage of impervious :! surface per parcel . The multiplier for the average single-family jresidence is established as one (1) . The multiplier linearly increases as the percentage of impervious area increases . The final category has a multiplier of one and six-tenths (1 . 6) which reflects the hydraulic impact on the drainage system compared to that impact of the average single-family residence . 4 . Basin-specific charges: The city shall have all lawful powers and authority�: s to fix, alter, regulate and control charges within specific basins and subbasins . The purpose of the power and authority granted in this section is to provide for charging parcels of one (1) basin or subbasin for improvements, studies or extraordinary maintenance which specifically and solely benefit the property owners within that basin or subbasinthea�tee_. The basin-specific charges are denoted in the following tables and hall become effective on the dates indicated on the tables as r' hews: 4 I i is jl �j �j i; j) Charge in ij dollars per ESU per month Basin Effective date Effective date is April 1, 1995 January 1, 1996 Westside O 0 . 00 0 . 00 K. .P..E. & E3ake—Fein (K. L.M. D, E, F. P&N 0 . 04 0 . 03 Eastside Mill Creek Upper (G) 2 . 63 4 . 77 4 • 89 Lower (A 2 .. :76 4 . 93 5 . 07 • 149 #396 (Q) 9 . 48 Valley pet . (0) 2 . 69 2 . 8 Garrison Creek Lower (B) 1 . 99 1 . 99 Upper (J & I) 1.. 99 1 . 83 1 . 82 Direct (C) 9 . 36 1 . 12 1 . 13 All Other 9 . 9 0 . 0 0_0 IThe boundaries of these basins and subbasins are generally indicated on Attachment "All . 1 The boundaries of the Rem eribe� basins and subbasins are generally defined and en exhibit A on file { in the city clerk' s office n na ______perat_a by t,.___ __f___nee . The detailed definitions of these basins and subbasins thereef are reflected on maps filed in the engineering division of the public 5 i it I! 11 i works department which are available to the public for review nand/or copying during normal business hours . I' 5 . Water quality charges: I a . The city hereby authorizes and declares its intent to establish, within two (2) years of the adoption of ithis chapter, a water quality charge which may be added to any or all of the above rates . The purposes of such a charge will be to finance monitoring, testing, treatment and control of pollutant discharges into the storm and surface water system, including the exercise of all lawful enforcement powers of the city. A plan for , developing such charges, and a schedule and budget for this project shall be submitted to the city council for review and approval . within ninety (90) days of adoption of this chapter. A system of water pollution charges for storm and surface water run-off from - all parcels of real property in the city shall be developed within two (2) years . b. Such charges should be based upon ; appropriate indices of pollutant discharges which approximate each ' parcel ' s contribution to the problem of water quality within storm and surface water facilities including all receiving waters . 6 . Undeveloped parcels shall be subject to all charges established under this section upon development of a '; parcel . Development shall be determined by the date of issuance of a building permit or any other permit for development purposes or as otherwise established by the director of public works . 6 _, ,j 'I i i! I �I I ii l Section 2 . Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable . The (i invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section i ,, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application . thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity jiof the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its lapplication to other persons or circumstances . Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. The rates authorized by this ordinance shall become effective on the dates noted herein. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i! APPROVED AS TO FORM: I! ' i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY r ii 7 li I� ji ;i i. i, PASSED the day of 1995 . 1APPROVED the day of 1995 . PUBLISHED the 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 City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK strate.ord 8 1 Noun n+c:a N OLIN iC T■ 1) EARTHWORKS PARK DETENTION SYSTEM r,IN 21 EARTHWORKS PARK LOOKING SOUTHEAST FROM OVERFLOW STRUCTURE x 31 JASON STREET AT EARTHWORKS PARK LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY TO THE SENIOR CENTER z -,.axle •"� Lk 4) SENIOR CENTER LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY .a r w i lC. t y 1 FtC As 5) KENNEBECK AVENUE AT SENIOR CENTER LOOKING WEST TOWARDS KENT MEDICAL, CENTER 6) JAMES STREET AT MILL CREEK LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS SMITH STREET a*u "OL r 1 7) CENTRAL AVENUE, AT MILL CREEK , VICINITY OF NOVAC LANE t 8) INTERSECTION OF GEORGE STREET AND WOODFORD 9) 76TII AVE S. LOOKING SOUTH FROM 212TH ST. M1. 10) 76TH AVENUES. (N. 4TH AVE) JUST SOUTH OF 212TH ST. , s r 11) S. 1801AII ST. & LIND AVENUE, LOOKING EASTERLY 12) S. 180TH STREET & LIND AVENUE r M A - • .1 u"f _ .. •..,A sue._ : - 1 13) 108TH AVE SF JUST SOUTH OF 240TH ST ?` t I 3.'• j { Cr. , i �.n 141 ROYAL FIRS APT. COMPLEX VICINITY OF 240TH ST & 108TH AVE SE r � w Y ..I 151 ROYAL FIRS APT. COMPLEX VICINITY OF 240TH ST & 108TH AVE SE R 161 EAWI'HWORKS PARK AFTER A STORM EVENT .,.,p - �+'ST R S ��e." x:iY1Ni• .,�%.ill 17) EARTHWORKS PARK. STORM EVENT r } I C tt : tl A� t 8� 18) CLEAN-UP OFEARTHWORKS PARK s. r � �Y ti 1 M • CLEAN-UP OF EARTHWORKS • CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember W dytl-4 moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 71 1995. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through January 31, 1995 and paid on January 30 and January 31, 1995 after auditing by the Operations Committee on February 81 1995. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/30/95 151267-151607 $ 810, 897. 50 1/31/95 151608-151837 $1, 061, 143 . 49 $1,872,040.99 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 16 through January 31, 1995 and paid on January 26 and February 3 , 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount Fire Retro 1/26/95 Checks 200818-200842 $ 46,900. 91 Advices 21531-21634 208 , 009 . 42 $ 254, 910. 33 Regular P/R 2/3/95 Checks 200843-201176 $ 258, 886.93 Advices 21635-22010 456 ,941.98 $ 715,828. 91 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington February 7, 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, and Orr, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Division Director Miller, and Human Resources Division Director Viseth. Approximately 85 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC 1995 Community Arts Grant Awards. Tracy COMMUNICATIONS Wickersham introduced Cheryl Hapgood, JoAnn Wells-Wesson, Cheryl Fraser, Julie Stangle, Margorie Rommel, Linda Johnson, Doreen Higgins, Lea Bishop and Maureen Curran, who are the recipients of Arts Commission Regrant Awards. Mayor White presented them with certificates. The Mayor noted that Scott Lindsey from Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn's office, Debbie Davis from Congressman Randy Tate's office, Representative Les Thomas, Leonard Garfield from the King County Arts Commission, and Senator Pam Roach attended the Grant Reception. Employee of the Month. The Mayor announced that Les Sorenson of the Street Department's Vegetation Management Section, has been named Employee of the Month for February. He noted that Sorenson is a team player who recently took on the task of mowing the 100-acre impoundment yard, and completed the task in half the time and for $3 , 000 less than a contractor's estimate. Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor White introduced Janette Nuss and Mike Pattison, his appointees to the Planning Commission, and Sherri Ourada and Shannon McMurry, his appointees to the Arts Commission. Regional Justice Center Update. Project Director Wendy Keller noted that bids are out on the project, that a great deal of interest was shown, and that a list of planholders is available if the Council would like to see it. She said the bids are due March 7 and should be awarded between March 23 and April 15. She said that preload will be going on for another 35 days. Keller noted that they are going over their cost and reporting processes to ensure that they stay within budget. She asked whether 1 February 71 1995 PUBLIC Council would like to see a display of the COMMUNICATIONS materials used on the outside of the Justice Center, as well as some of the arts projects. It was agreed to bring the materials to the next update. CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through U be approved. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 17, 1995. HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) SANITATION Lindental, Phase II. AUTHORIZATION to accept the Bill of Sale for Lindental, Phase II sub- mitted by Ralph D. Guthrie & Gertrude O. Guthrie for continuous operation and maintenance of 370 feet of water-main extension, 500 feet of sanitary sewers, 375 feet of street improve- ments and 210 feet of storm sewers, and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at SE 265th P1. & 116th Ave. SE. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Charge in Lieu of Assessment - 116th Avenue Water Main. APPROVAL of a Charge in Lieu of Assessment, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. In conjunction with the 272nd/277th Corridor project, a portion of 116th Ave. SE near SE 270th St. is to be lowered, exposing the watermain. As such, the City has relocated the watermain to accommodate the new road construc- tion. A portion of the main was also relocated to a new alignment to accommodate the layout of the new plat of Kingstone. A Charge in Lieu of Assessment originally existed on the main and the Public Works Department requests that this Charge in Lieu of Assessment be relocated to the new fronting properties, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. 2 February 7 , 1995 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q) James Street/212th Street Water Main Replace- ments and 212th Street Storm Sewer Replacement. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. for the James Street/212th Street Water Main Replacements and 212th Street Storm Sewer Replacement project and release of retainage after State releases, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract was $466, 663 .75 . The final construction cost was $498, 754 . 03 . UTILITIES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Drainage Utility Rates. AUTHORIZATION to set a Public Hearing for February 21st on the Drainage Utility Financial Plan & Revenue Program, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) LID 346 - S. 212th Street. AUTHORIZATION to set March 21st as the public hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for LID 346 - S. 212th Street Sidewalks & Street Lighting. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R) S. 212th Street Rebuild. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. for the S. 212th Street Rebuild project and release of retainage after State releases, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract was $103, 423 . 00. The final construction cost was $99 , 622 . 60. STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) VACATIONS Street Vacation - Russell Road Between S. 228th Street and James Street (STV-95-1) . This public hearing has been set to consider an application by University Savings Bank to vacate a portion of Russell Road between S. 228th Street and James Street, as referenced in Resolution No. 1414 and discussed in the staff report. Planning Director Harris pointed out the loca- tion on a map and noted that a short plat was approved by the Short Plat Committee in 1993 (SPC-93-14) . He pointed out that one of the conditions of the short plat was that "no 3 February 7, 1995 STREET building permits shall be granted for Lot 3 VACATIONS until Russell Road is vacated for the entire lot frontage thereon and Lot 3 is incorporated into a development involving the property lying westerly of Russell Road". Harris said this has taken place. He outlined conditions attached as follows: 1) The City shall retain utility ease- ments over, upon and under the property to be vacated along with rights to grant such utility easements to other public and/or private utility companies, and 2) The City shall be compensated in accordance with City ordinance for said vacated property based on current fair market value thereof. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Lois Ord, 221 SW Langston Road, Renton, stated that vacating this stretch of ground would make it impossible to open the Ruby Neely Soames House to the public, since there is not enough room to park the dozens of cars needed to make the house self-supporting. She was also con- cerned about handicapped access being 1/4 mile away. Ord noted that the house is under the care of the Parks Department and that it has not been maintained. She said that she was informed by the City that the road had been abandoned, and would be vacated. She felt that access was deliberately cut off by the City. She then read a letter dated January 30 from Senator Margarita Prentice expressing concern that a decision was made prior to City Council action under the open Meetings Law. Ord asked that action on this item be delayed until the Public Disclosure Commission can check into the matter. Linda Van Nest, 13521 SE 266th, also voiced concern about how the road variance and development would affect the Ruby Neely Soames property. She noted that the house was built in the 1880's, and agreed that the house has not been kept up. She noted that the house is on the State Register for Historic Places. She suggested finding out whether a SEPA checklist needs to be sent to the State Office of History and Archeology for review. She also suggested that the City look into forming a Historic Preservation Committee and offered to help in 4 February 7, 1995 STREET any way. She pointed out that historic VACATIONS resources are the No. 2 draw for tourism in Washington State. Planning Director Harris noted that the Planning Department is the agency which got the Neely home on the Historical Register. He explained that Jim Summers and The Lakes project deeded one acre of land which included the Neely home to the City as part of the approval of the whole Lakes project. He noted that there will be access to the Neely home. He explained that the street vacation before the Council tonight is so that the property owner can move forward with a project that has legally been approved for many years with plats fitting into the Master Plan to arrive at this point. He noted that there will also be actions in the future which will affect the properties in this area. He agreed that the City may need to move forward on historical preservation, but that it is not in the Planning Department's budget. Eric Wells of Polygon Northwest submitted a letter in support of the vacation. JOHNSON MOVED to make the letter a part of the record. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Ms. Ord explained that if the area in question had been left open, people could drive right up to the Neely Soames House. She said the only people who will be able to see the house will be hikers and bicycle riders along the river. She said it is her understanding that all roads along the river will be closed to traffic. She asked what has happened to the money the City has collected since 1986 for rent. Eric Wells clarified that access to the Neely house would be off 236th. There were no further comments and JOHNSON MOVED to close the public hearing. Houser seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to approve the Planning Department's recommendation of approval with conditions of an application to vacate a portion of Russell Road between S. 228th Street and James Street and to 5 February 7 , 1995 STREET direct the City Attorney to prepare the neces- VACATIONS sary ordinance upon receipt of compensation and retainment of the utility easement. Johnson seconded. Orr then asked if it would be possi- ble to erect directional signs to the home; Harris said it would be a good idea. Orr shared Ord's concern about the condition of the house and said she does not feel this vacation will create problems as far as access. Mayor White asked that staff develop a proposal on signage and clean-up of the house which he will bring back to Council. Orr's motion then carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) West Titus street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1421 setting March 7, 1995, as the date for a public hearing on the West Titus Street Vacation. The Public Works Department has received a request for street vacation for a portion of Titus St. , from Webster Court Apartments & Titus Court Apartments. It has been recommended by the Public Works Committee that a hearing date be set for March 7th for the Titus St. Street Vacation. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) CONTROL Frasier Road Guardrail. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Local Agency Agreement for the Frager Road Guardrail Installation and esta- blishment of the budget for same, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. Grant funding from ISTEA for this project is available. SIDEWALKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P) Wheelchair Ramps, Phase II. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Gary Merlino Construction for the Wheelchair Ramp Improvements Phase II project and release of retainage after State releases, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract was $51, 100. 00. The final construction was $53 , 400. 00. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3S) Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with R. E. Bailey Construction for the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I project and 6 February 7 , 1995 SIDEWALKS release of retainage after State releases, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. The original contract was $157, 632 .90. The final construction cost is $186, 863 .96, the overage being due to unforeseen conditions encountered in the field, i.e. , sidewalks built on top of older sidewalks. Adequate funds within the sidewalk fund exist to cover this overage. FRANCHISE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) MCI Metro Franchise - Introduction and First Reading. This franchise, when authorized, will allow MCI Metro Access Transmission Services, Inc. to install a portion of its regional fiber optic telecommunications system in the City of Kent. The franchise is being introduced only at this time. State law prohibits enactment of street franchises on the same day of their introduction. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker noted that this is a five-year franchise allowing MCI Metro to construct a fiber optic telecommunications system in any of the existing streets including areas annexed in the next five years. He noted that the only payments made to the City are a filing fee and an administrative fee, since by State law a franchise fee cannot be imposed. He added that fees may be negotiated later under certain conditions. Clark noted that the advantage of fiber optics is that you get sound and visual possibilities as well as other new services such as data compression. He said that while he welcomes MCI, he is concerned about keeping track of the changes, noting that the State does not have laws in place to bring it under regulation. MANN MOVED to send this item back to the Public Works Committee for further discussion before bringing it back to Council. Bennett seconded. It was clarified that this will appear on the February 21st agenda. The motion then carried. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Julie's Addition Final Plat FSU-94-7 . AUTHORIZATION to set February 21, 1995 as the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat application made by Bargausen Consulting 7 February 7, 1995 PLAT Engineers, Inc. This subdivision was originally approved in King County as a preliminary plat. Appropriate City departments met to consider this plat on December 21, 1994 and concurred that the plat meets City requirements. The plat is 4 .561 acres in size, consists of 17 lots, and is located between 114th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E. on S.E. 264th Place. COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3T) PLAN Draft Comprehensive Plan CPA-94-1. AUTHORIZATION to accept and refer the Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan (CPA-94-1) to the City Council Planning Committee to conduct such meetings and/or hearings it deems necessary in order to develop a recommendation for considera- tion by the full City Council. The Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan was forwarded to the City Council by the Mayor on January 5, 1995 following a year-long review process by the Planning Commission. The City Council held a workshop on the draft plan on January 17, 1995 and also conducted a tour of the planning area on January 21, 1995 . ANNEXATIONS (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) Beck Annexation (AN-94-4) . This date has been set for the public hearing on the final Council action necessary for completion of the Beck Annexation (AN-94-4) . The City Council accepted the 60% petition on October 4 , 1994 and filed the Notice of Intent document for review and approval by the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) for King County. The BRB notified the City that the notice is approved as of January 13, 1995. This annexation is approxi- mately 200 acres and is located north of James Street and lies astride of 95th Avenue South (approximately 1250 feet east of 94th and 600 feet west of 94th) extending northerly to approximately South 222nd Street. The proposed ordinance would annex this area. Planning Director Harris pointed out the loca- tion of the annexation on the map and noted that the population is approximately 500. 8 - February 7, 1995 ANNEXATIONS Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3210 annexing certain contiguous lands commonly known as the Beck Annexation. Houser seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3U) Interlocal Agreement for Proposed Annexation Areas Between King County Federal Wav and Kent. APPROVAL of and AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement for proposed annexation areas between King County, Federal Way and Kent, as approved by the City Council Planning Committee. INTERNATIONAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) TRADE Green River Valley International Trade Program. AUTHORIZATION to enter into a service agreement for the Green River Valley International Trade Program. Funds have been allocated in the City of Kent 1995 budget. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) City Council Excused Absence. APPROVAL of Council President Judy Woods' request for an excused absence from the February 7, 1995 City Council meeting as she will be unable to attend. CURFEW (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Initiative Petition 101 - Juvenile safety and Family Reconciliation Ordinance (Curfew) . Submitted for consideration is an ordinance adopting Initiative Petition 101 entitled "Juvenile Safety and Family Reconciliation", establishing a curfew for juveniles within the City of Kent. Pursuant to RCW 35. 17, the City Council shall, within 20 days after certification of signatures on an initiative petition, either adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit it to the people for a vote. The next available election for this measure would be April 25, 1995 . Wade Davis, 26414 Eton Court, asked the Council to adopt the ordinance tonight, noting that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to have an 9 February 7 , 1995 CURFEW election, since the initiative will then pass. Bill Young, 1005 E. Guiberson, agreed. Connie EpAerly, 639 S. 5th Avenue, noted that the Council rejected a juvenile curfew ordinance seven months ago, ignoring the wishes of the citizens. She said she found support for a curfew in every neighborhood, and that the Councilmembers seem to be out of touch. She said it would be a travesty to force an expen- sive special election on the taxpayers for a foregone conclusion. Ron Harmon, 20627 95th Avenue South, who was also representing a neighbor, said that when he was approached about signing the petition, he was told that it would be submitted to the voters and that it was not a mandate for the Council to act. Leslie Scott, 26611 Manchester Avenue, begged the Council to adopt the ordinance tonight, noting that her two teenage sons feel they can get away with any- thing. She said a curfew would give parents more control. Russ Stringham, 524 W. Meeker, said the results will be the same whether the ordinance is adopted tonight or a special elec- tion is held. He said the concern about the cost of a court challenge is inappropriate, since that may never happen, and that the Council should listen to taxpayers. He then quoted comments made in the past by Council- members and said the bottom line is getting to kids before it is too late. Chris Giannoulas, Dakota s Restaurant and Nightclubs, said he does not agree that the Council is out of touch with what is happening in this community, and that he has found them to be understanding, agreeable and open-minded. He also said he does not agree with those who say this will cost nothing. He said that he agrees with a curfew in some form, but that this one would be hard to enforce. He suggested that the initiative needs stronger language and clarification. He said the entire public may have to assume the bill and under- stand that the Police Department needs extra help. Bennett said that when this was brought to Council seven months ago he had strong evidence that the citizens and Police on the street were for it, and that that has not changed. HE THEN 10 February 7, 1995 CURFEW MOVED to adopt Ordinance 3211 adopting and enacting Initiative Petition 101 adding a new chapter to the Kent City Code entitled Juvenile Safety and Family Reconciliation . Johnson seconded. Mann noted that some people who signed the petition thought it would go before the citizens for a vote. He said that Stringham and Epperly had told him that some signers were not sure which way they would vote, but wanted to give citizens a chance to vote on it. He said there is no way to know how many people signed the petition with this intent, and therefore a special election should be held on April 25. Orr agreed that it is in the best interest of the citizens to have an opportunity to vote on this issue. She voiced concerns about how the ordinance would be enforced, and said that a major flaw is in giving officers the ability to take juveniles into custody but not providing a safe place to keep them. She noted that only two crimes were committed during the curfew hours in December. She questioned the impact of a 10 p.m. curfew to teens partici- pating in programs such as Project Lighthouse. She stated that Stringham had told her he signs nearly all initiative petitions because he believes in the process, and then tries to defeat the ones he does not believe it at the polls. She agreed with Mann that there is no way to know how many people signed the petition because they support a curfew and how many because they believe in the process. She pointed out that the number of signatures on ,the petition is a small percentage of the registered voters in the City. She urged all voters to do as much research as possible and make an informed decision on this issue. She also said staff must develop ways to deal with the enforcement and penalty sections in the event that this ordinance is the will of the voters. Clark said the City must consider whether this will be challenged in court. He noted that similar ordinances have already been success- fully challenged and that it was very expensive. He noted that to adopt this ordinance would be dangerous because of the potential impact to the 11 February 7, 1995 CURFEW budget. He stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that children do have rights and in order to take those rights away, you must establish that it is in their best interest that those rights be removed. He questioned whether the intent of the ordinance is to roll back crime, and noted that violators can already be arrested. He noted that the City is required by law to house juvenile offenders separate from adults, and therefore they cannot be housed at the Corrections Facility and that they could not be housed at the Regional Justice Center either. He said juveniles from Kent would have to be taken to Seattle, which is normally full, so they could not be held. He questioned what would be done with juveniles who are not from Kent, and noted that it would be expensive to provide transportation to take them home. He said that to arrest juveniles under this law would be to arrest them because they are kids, not because they have done anything wrong. He said that changing their behavior is critical, but that it would be expensive. He pointed out that the City Council has tried to help children by expanding youth teen programs with an in- crease in the utilities tax. He said if funding is taken away and used for a teen correction center in Kent, juveniles will have been de- tained but nothing will have been done to change their behavior. He said he does not feel passing a curfew is a more efficient use of money, and that it would not do anything to help children. Houser noted for Ms. Scott that her children will not be picked up and returned to her, but will be cited and let go since there is no place to take them. She said the curfew will not solve behavior problems but it will cost money for fines every time they are picked up. She agreed with Orr and Clark, and said that 3, 000 signatures is not a good indication of the feelings of a city of 43, 000 people. She said everyone should have the chance to vote. 12 February 7, 1995 CURFEW Upon a roll call vote, Bennett's motion to adopt Ordinance 3211 failed, with Bennett and Johnson in favor and Clark, Houser, Mann and Orr opposed. MANN MOVED to call for a special election to be held April 25, 1995 by mail ballot in accordance with RCW 29 .36. 120 on Initiative Petition 101. Houser seconded. The City Attorney explained that a mail ballot would be more cost effective. Upon a roll call vote, Mann's motion carried unanimously. FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Inspection Agreement with Ring County. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Inter- local Agreement with King County, which covers the inspecting of all occupancies in Fire District 37 , with the exception of single family residences and miscellaneous structures. This agreement is in a series of continuing agree- ments that have been signed for the last several years. This agreement provides a tool used by the Fire Department to alleviate serious fire ` hazards in the District's commercial buildings. It is for the first inspection and one re-inspection only. Any follow up work after the first re-inspection is the responsibility of the King County Fire Marshal. HUMAN RESOURCES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Salaried Judge Position. APPROVAL of the creation of the position of Municipal Court Judge as a salaried position in Department Head Salary Range 2 ; that the judge's position be budgeted and paid at the rate of 85% of full time; and that the budget be amended to reflect the creation of the position of Municipal Court Judge as a salaried position and the necessary funds to pay for the position be transferred to salaries and benefits from professional ser- vices, as recommended by the Operations Committee. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Planning Commission Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's reappointment of Janette Nuss to continue serving as a member of the Kent 13 February 7, 1995 APPOINTMENTS Planning Commission. Ms. Nuss' new term will continue to 12/31/2000. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Mike Pattison to serve as a member of the Kent Planning Commission. Mr. Pattison will replace Raymond Ward, whose term expired. His new term will continue to 12/31/2000. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Arts Commission Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Sherri Ourada and' Shannon McMurry to serve as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Ourada will replace JoAnn Brady, who resigned, and her term will continue to 10/31/97 . Ms. McMurry will replace Keiko Cullen, who resigned, and her appointment will continue to 10/31/95 . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through January 3 , 1995 for 1995, January 12 , 1995 for 1994 and January 13 , 1995 for 1995 and paid on January 12 , 1995 for 1994 and January 13 , 1995 for 1995 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 25, 1995. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/1-1/12/95 150851-151217 $1, 266,868.44 1/1-1/13/95 151218-151266 601, 471278 $1, 868 , 340. 22 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 1 through January 15, 1995 and paid on January 20, 1995. Date Check Numbers Amount 1/20/95 Checks 200485-200817 $ 292 , 592 .20 Advices 21149-21530 488 , 859 :57 $ 781,451.77 REPORTS Operations Committee. Johnson noted that the next Committee meeting will be held on February 8 at 9:30 a.m. 14 "' February 7 , 1995 REPORTS Planning Committee. Orr announced that the City Council Planning Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, February 14th at 6: 00 p.m. in Chambers West to discuss the Draft Compre- hensive Plan and invited all interested persons to attend. Orr also noted receipt of material addressed to Council President Woods from Russ Stringham on the Comprehensive Plan and MOVED that it be made a part of the record. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Council of an executive session to discuss labor negotiations and property acquisition. EXECUTIVE The meeting recessed to Executive Session at SESSION 8 : 20 p.m. The Council meeting reconvened at 9 : 00 p.m. LABOR JOHNSON MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to NEGOTIATIONS sign a collective bargaining agreement with the Police Support Unit. Houser seconded and the motion carried. PROPERTY HOUSER MOVED to acquire the property known as ACQUISITION the King residence for $95, 050 and that a budget of $97 , 000 be established from the CIP reserve fund to cover purchase price, closing costs and minor repairs to the house. Mann seconded and the motion carried. HOUSER MOVED to acquire the property known as the Skinner residence for $105, 000 with the acquisition cost coming from excess funds in the Green River Trail Project under the 1989 King County Open Space Bond Program. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9 : 05 p.m. a-64�� Brenda Jaco er, CMC City Clerk 15 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar m rnT�T 1. SUBJECT: SPECIAL ELECTION ON CURFEW --4;3B irv=��/'y-! 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution No- for 1 � calling for a special election on Initiative Petition 101 establishing a curfew for juveniles within the City of Kent, as directed by the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 71 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES ✓ 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ 30 Coo SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, calling for a special election on Initiative Petition 101 which adds a new chapter to Title 9 of the Kent City Code entitled "Juvenile Safety and Family Reconciliation" ; defining duties and responsibilities of parents/guardians as well as juveniles; and providing for the penalties for violations thereof . WHEREAS, a Citizens Initiative Petition, No. 101, was filed with the City Clerk on January 23 , 1995, and has been certified as sufficient pursuant to RCW 35A. 11 . 100 ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35 . 17 . 260 and KCC 1 . 30 . 170 , following certification of the petition, the City Council shall pass the proposed ordinance without alteration within twenty (20) days or cause to be called a special election on the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 7, 1995, considered the issue of Initiative Petition 101 and moved to call for a special election on the proposed ordinance to be held April 25 , 1995 by mail ballot ; NOW, THEREFORE, vrca�¢twe�ieG.'Ie'000 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . That, pursuant to RCW 29 . 13 . 020 , a special election be called on the matter of Initiative Petition 101, adding a new chapter to Title 9 of the Kent City Code entitled "Juvenile Safety and Family Reconciliation" , establishing a curfew for juveniles within the City of Kent . Section 2. That the special election for Initiative Petition 101 be held April 25 , 1995 by mail ballot in accordance with RCW 29 . 36 . 120 . Section 3. That the City Clerk is directed to file this resolution and other related material required with King County for the purpose of establishing the special election on Initiative Petition 101 . 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 2 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 initiatv.res 3 �11f_l Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF AUDITING OFFICER 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: s authorized by the Operations Committee at $$heir ,,Fe� )ru ry 8th meeting, fddoptj0 Odin ce 19, appointing the Operations Committee,0 or its autho izea aesigneem� as the City's auditing officer) This technical ordinance, as required by RCW 42 . 24 . 080, has been prepared by the City Attorney and reviewed by the State Auditor. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print . ----------- ---- --- ---- - -------- ---------- eject : APPOINT - AUDITING OFFICER Creator : Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 02/01/95 at 1608 . TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMEBERS DURING THE 1994 AUDIT OF THE CITY, ROBERT GOHRAM, STATE AUDITOR NOTED THAT THE CITY DID NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE OFFICIALLY APPOINTING AN AUDITING OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY RCW 42 . 24 . 080 . IN PRACTICE, THE CITY' S OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND FINANCE MANAGER SIGNED AUTHORIZATION OF THE VOUCHERS AT EACH MEETING, BUT NO OFFICIAL ORDINANCE PROSCRIBED THIS AUTHORIZATION. THIS TECHNICAL ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND REVIEWED BY THE STATE AUDITOR. THE ORDINANCE OFFICIALLY APPOINTS THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OR ITS AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE AS THE OFFICIAL AUDITING OFFICER FOR ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS AND VOUCHERS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. AS IN THE PRESENT PROCEDURE, THE CITY FINANCE MANAGER OR DESIGNEE SHALL PREPARE FOR THE AUDITING OFFICER A LIST OF ALL CLAIMS & SHALL PRESENT THE SAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. THESE CLAIMS ARE TO BE CERTIFIED BY EACH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. THE VOUCHERS ARE BEING REVISED WITH A CERTIFICATION BLOCK TO VALIDATE THE CLAIMS AS BEING JUST, DUE AND UNPAID OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. COUNCIL ACTION: h�LOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE APPOINTING THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, OR ITS AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE AS THE CITY AUDITING OFFICER. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a new chapter of the Kent City Code pertaining to the payment of, claims, demands, and vouchers . WHEREAS, RCW 42 . 24 . 180 provides that the legislative body of the City may authorize the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims prior to approval by the legislative body as long as certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City has not, by ordinance, established a system pursuant to RCW 42 . 24 . 180 to authorize issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims prior to legislative approval . WHEREAS, the Kent City Council, upon recommendation of the Director of Operations and Finance Manager, has determined to establish a new chapter of the Kent City Code to utilize the authorization set forth in RCW 42 . 24 . 180 ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION I . The Kent City Code is hereby amended by adding a new chapter, Chapter 3 . 03 , to read as follows : CHAPTER 3 . 03 PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, DEMANDS AND VOUCHERS Sec. 3 . 03 . 010 . City auditing officer. The operations committee, or its authorized designee, shall serve as the City auditing officer and shall act as auditor for the City for all claims, demands and vouchers presented to the City Council for approval . Such claims , demands and vouchers shall be prepared for audit and payment on a form providing for the authentication and certification by the auditing officer that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described, and the claim, demand or voucher is a just, true and unpaid obligation against the City. Sec . 3 . 03 . 020 . Preparation of list of claims, demands and vouchers for council approval . The city finance manager, or his or her designee, shall prepare, for the auditing officer, a list of all claims, demands and vouchers presented to the City for payment and shall present the same to the city council for approval . These claims shall be certified by each department director that the materials have been furnished, services rendered or labor performed as describe 2 and the claim, demand or voucher is a just, true and unpaid obligation against the city. Sec . 3 . 03 . 030 . Payment of claims, demands and vouchers . A. Claims, demands or vouchers may be paid prior to City Council approval if the following conditions are met : 1 . The mayor, the director of operations, the finance manager, and any designee authorized to sign the checks or warrants, shall each furnish an official bond for the faithful discharge of his 'or her duties in an amount determined by the City Council, but not less than fifty thousand dollars . A blanket fidelity bond applicable to such officials and employees in addition to others and in an amount not less than fifty thousand dollars shall be sufficient to meet this requirement ; 2 . The City Council has adopted contracting, hiring, purchasing and disbursing policies that implement effective internal control; 3 . The City Council shall review all documentation supporting any claim, demand or voucher paid and for approval of all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand or voucher at its next regularly scheduled public meeting; and 4 . If, upon review, the City Council disapproves a claim, demand or voucher, the auditing officer shall cause the disapproved claim, demand or voucher to be recognized as a receivable of the City and shall direct city administration to 3 pursue collection diligently until the amounts disapproved are collected or until the City Council is satisfied and approves the claim, demand or voucher. B . Notwithstanding the fact that all of the above conditions are met , the City Council may stipulate that certain kinds or amounts of claims, demands or vouchers shall not be paid before the City Council has reviewed the supporting documentation and approved the issue of checks or warrants in payment of those claims, demands or vouchers . Sec. 3 . 03 . 040 . Claims for reimbursement for expenses of officers and employees . Claims for reimbursement of any expenditures by officers or employees of the City for transportation, lodging, meals or any other purpose shall be pursuant to city administrative policy. Sec. 3 .23 . 050 . Claims for damages to persons or property. Claims or demands for damages to persons or property shall be presented to the city in accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A. 31 and Kent City Code Chapter 2 . 97 . 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 4 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 5 PASSED day of 1994 . APPROVED day of 1994 . PUBLISHED day of 1994 . 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 voucher.ord 6 ?/101 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER - BUDGET CHANGE ccommen �0`� 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee. A Ppforat that a budget be a ablished for the Regional Justice Center in the amount of $19 , 000 to be funded by permit fees paid by King County for the onstruction of the Regional Justice Center, and that one building inspector position be authorized in the pro- ject budget2a5This position will terminate upon conclusion of the RJC project. Any remaining funds in the project budget upon conclusion of the project shall be transferred to the General Fund of the City. Quarterly reports will be provided to the Operations Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to the City Council Operations Committee 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $190, 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: RJC Permit Fees 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1995 TO: COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE v" FROM: BRENT MCFALL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS SUBJECT: RJC INSPECTION PROJECT With the forthcoming construction phase of the Regional Justice Center, the City faces a challenge as to how the construction inspection will be managed without negatively impacting other construction projects in the city. These other projects are anticipated to continue at the same or higher rate as the last year which has been sufficient to occupy all of our existing inspection capacity. Attached you will find a memorandum prepared by Building Official Bob Hutchinson which discusses the impacts of the RJC. You will note that along with the impacts, the RJC generates substantial revenue in the form of permit fees. These permit fees were not included as revenue in the 1995 Budget, and are therefore available to pay for the extraordinary costs associated with inspections of the RJC. PROPOSAL In order to meet the inspection requirements of the RJC while maintaining our service to other customers staff proposes the following: • The Council establish a project budget for the Regional Justice Center of$190,000 to be funded with revenue derived from permit fees collected from King County for RJC permits. • The Council authorize two building inspector positions to be paid from the project budget. One inspector will be hired approximately April 1, 1995, with the other hired approximately January 1, 1996, depending upon construction schedule and workload requirements. The authorized building inspector positions are project positions. These positions will be discontinued upon conclusion of the project. • Any funds remaining in the project budget at conclusion of the inspection program for the RJC will be transferred to the General Fund and shall be available to fund general government operations of the City. RECOMMENDATION The Operations Committee recommend to Council that a project budget be established for the Regional Justice Center in the amount of$190,000 to be funded by pen-nit fees paid by King County for construction of the Regional Justice Center, and that two building inspector positions be authorized in the project budget. These positions will terminate upon conclusion of the RJC project. Any remaining funds in the project budget upon conclusion of the project shall be transferred to the General Fund of the City. REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER WORKLOAD IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR 1995 AND 1996 January 1995 The purpose of this analysis is to determine, as accurately as possible, the extent of workload demands placed on Development Services Division (DSD) staff by the Regional Justice Center project (RJC), so that adequate revenues from the building plan review and permit fees can be dedicated to providing the means with which to do the work. This approach is essential in order to provide the mandated protection to the public afforded by verification of code compliance through plan review and inspections without deterioration of service to the remainder of the community. The Regional Justice Center is, by a wide margin, the largest individual construction project in Kent's history. It is evident that it will place a significant burden on city services. This analysis examines the workload anticipated to be imposed on DSD in 1995 and 1996 through the construction phase. An application for a building permit was filed on October 19, 1994, triggering intensive plan review activity. At the time this is being written, most of the initial review has been done and will be completed by the end of January. The results of plan review to date indicate a significant lack of details and non code-complying components in the design. In addition, recent contacts with the project designers indicate that the county will be introducing significant revisions to the plans submitted. They have also informed us that a number of the components of the project have not yet been designed, as the designs will be completed by successful bidders for those components. These factors presage significant plan review workload demand in 1995 and possibly 1996, to verify corrections to plans submitted and to determine code compliance as specific details of system components and revisions are submitted. This analysis will examine workload impacts by area of function in DSD (i.e. administration, plan review, and inspections). It assumes the accuracy of the applicant's projected construction schedule of 411/95 through 12/31/96. Administration The recently implemented automation of permit applications, permits, and inspections, together with document imaging storage and retrieval of related records expected in the next month, will provide the ability to absorb the added administrative workload imposed by the RJC with existing staff levels, as long as other factors remain unchanged. RJC Workload Impact Analysis, January, 1995 Page 2 Plan Review Most of the initial plan review has been done, with approximately 400 plan reviewer- hours dedicated to this project in 1994. Completion of initial plan review and checking resubmittals of corrections of non-complying or missing design elements will still require significant dedication of plan review time through March, 1995. Some of this can be absorbed through use of overtime budgeted for fiscal year 1995, but at the expense of compromising overtime resources which will probably be needed later in the year for other projects. The time projected for such review from January 1 through March 31, 1995 (when we expect to issue the building permit), is 224 hours. In addition, review of design elements created and/or revised after the initial permit issuance will continue to impose an additional workload. This is tentatively projected to total 300 plan reviewer-hours in the remainder of 1995 and 200 more in 1996. The total time projected for 1995 of 524 hours comprises 29% of one plans examiners available time, or 13% of DSD's total plan review capacity. Projected 1996 demand is 11% of one plans examiner's time, or 5% of current capacity. Inspections Inspections, by far, will comprise DSD's largest workload demand. Therefore, it has been accorded the following in-depth analysis. No historical precedent exists in Kent for assessing inspections for a project of this size. However, records have been carefully maintained since January 1, 1989, of the numbers of building inspections made, staffing levels to make them and valuation of building permits issued. These records provide the following data: 1989 through 1994 50,448 actual inspections performed $586,334,231 valuation of permits issued 32,467 inspector hours utilized (@ 1824 hours/inspector/year) " Excludes overtime hours for inspectors, much of which was used for plan review, rather than inspections. Calculations based on the above reveal that, during this period, an average of 1.55 inspections were performed for each inspector/hour. It also shows that one inspection was needed for each $11,622.09 of valuation. RJC Workload Impact Analysis, January, 1995 Page 3 Dividing the applicant's stated valuation of $93,800,000 for this project by $11,622.09 yields a prediction of 8,071 inspections to be done on this project. At 1.55 inspections per inspector/hour, 8,071 inspections will require 5,207 inspector hours. If we assume that the inspection demand will be uniformly distributed over the 21 months (9 in '95; 12 in '96) of the project, we can mathematically project that 248 inspector hours will be required for each month. As each inspector has 152 hours available (1824 divided by 12), this indicates that 1.63 additional inspectors will be needed from April 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996 to accommodate this workload increase. Some examination of assumptions will show that conclusions based on the above mathematics may warrant modification. Experience has indicated that larger projects may require fewer inspections per unit of valuation, but that the reduction in number of inspections may well be offset by the additional time needed to do them, which leads us to conclude that the inspector/hours calculations are probably accurate. However, the distribution of the inspector/hour demand will probably not be uniform. In all probability, earlier phases of construction will require somewhat less inspector time, while completion stages will require more. How much the projections should be adjusted is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately calculate. However, it is clear that, at a minimum, one additional inspector will be needed by April 1, 1995. Conclusions and Recommendations It appears certain that the workload impacts of the Regional Justice Center on DSD will far exceed the capabilities of existing staff resources without augmentation. Therefore, the following recommendations are provided as the basis for a plan of action to maintain success in providing mandated DSD services. 1. Continue administrative functions, resources and innovations as currently in place and planned. This will require maintaining existing staff levels and implementation of document imaging as planned. 2. Prepare to contract out plan review as workload peaks exceed staff capabilities, while rationing overtime to be spread throughout the year. Monitor contract costs closely to identify whether adding plan review staff would be more cost- effective. 3. Hire one (1) permanent full-time building inspector by April 1, 1995. This would coincide with the beginning of inspection workload associated with the RJC and with the receipt of the building permit fee for the project. Reserve revenue derived from the permit fee in anticipation of the need to hire another inspector by January 1, 1996, when inspection workload demand is expected to intensify. RJC Workload Impact Analysis, January, 1995 Page 4 4. Monitor workload demands and review the above conclusions quarterly, or more often if actual circumstances appear to vary significantly from projections. Costs/Funding Costs for administrative functions are budgeted: the document imaging through monies in Information Services budgets. No adjustments are anticipated to be needed. Costs for plan review contracts will be governed by workload exceeding existing staff resources capabilities and can not be accurately predicted. What can be predicted is that revenues provided by the plan review fees collected for each project contracted out will exceed the contract costs for each individual project's plan review. Plan review fees are separate from building permit fees, but are set by Council to be calculated as 65% of the building permit fee. The preferred contractor is the International Conference of Building Officials, which contracts to review plans at a charge equal to 55% of the building permit fee. While this means that approximately 85% (55 divided by 65 = .846) of the plan review fees collected for contracted projects would be expended for the reviews, it does provide revenues to pay for them. For example, the plan review fee collected in 1994 for the RJC was approximately $122,000 and contracting for review would have cost approximately $103,700. Costs for inspections are estimated to be adequately addressed in 1995 by hiring one (1) additional inspector by April 1, 1995, and upgrading one inspector position to Lead Inspector. Costs incurred will include such start-up items as a vehicle, computer, cellular phone, etc., as well as training, supplies, salary and benefits. Total 1995 estimated cost for the new position and the upgrade is $66,200. Inspections will continue through 1996, with workload expected to intensify. Hiring another inspector by January 1, 1996 will provide the ability to meet this increased demand. Start-up items for this position (another vehicle will not be necessary, as alternative work schedules will allow for 5 inspectors to be adequate served with 4 vehicles) combined with salaries and continuing costs for this position, the upgrade, and the position filled April 1, 1995 are estimated to total $118,800 in 1996. Thus, the total inspection cost of this project through 1996 is estimated at $185,000. The building permit fee will be collected at the time the permit is issued, currently projected as April 1, 1995. This fee is determined by valuation, currently estimated at $93,800,000, producing a building permit fee of approximately $190,000, $5,000 more than the projected inspection cost. RJC Inspector Hours Projected 350 i L300 ---------------- ---------- - -------- f O i o 250 U Q / 200 --------------- ---------------------- ------------------------ 15 0 r 95 May 95 Jun 95 Jul 95 Aug5 Se 95 Oci 95 Nov 95 Dec 95 Jan 96 Feb 96 Mar%AP Y g p Apr%May 96 Jun 96 Jul% Aug 96 Sep%OC% Nov% -•- Estimated actual inspector hours Inspector hours uniformly distributed I RJC Inspection Costs/Revenues 200000 l 5g Pe 150000 -- ------ ----- ■ �- Cost of funding inspectors 100000 -- ----------- 9 p o Permit Fees 50000 - ----------- 0 1995 to 1996 �1_14 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21. 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: UPPER GARRISON CREEK CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS f r nn�� MDT FT Ti_ 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, uthoriz ion to accept as complete the contract with Gary Merlino onstruction for the Upper Garrison Creek Conveyance Impro e'en project and release of retainage after State releases. The original contract was $752,922 .20 . The final construction cost was $787 , 237 . 63 . 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. 3F Ic•F y ALVORD M AVE f EW 7y , N EL1MMll HILLTOP AVE Pl Jn _�^�'�'• ' .G.�.�• .i.l ,�O M a AVEOmar N �r_ L(' \ O xro • lIL N N � t L�. ` lL N ZI r .,4 y 1 Ir A— ~ Y •'. 94TH AVE TH S 94T( 4j 44TH AVE INa a na y a u y 937H PL N •a4' = i Z ~ p� 96TH 96TH AVE 3 s STil iAVE n £j C 96TH AVE S S AVE S u f y eery 7 a a N © . YE S �` y �' N • 9j •� iP• 2 96TH AVE 3 O S AW RRY N n A n� n 99TH AVE 3 ~ u 1P,a1 a a _ _ _ � N y r • -4 1O�TM AVE sE "• OD lOOTHfq AYE ~ Z .uy O ^''' v rZ— 102ND. .,Barricade C y >r AVE SE (A _ m A N < m _/y• iO3RD N i* 103RD N - - m S✓E SE AVE SE 1 T ya = tTH AVE SE 2 L! 104TH AVE 4 SE ,/ PL SH rO .yP+y N N �i s N AVE N = 3 N T O-o rn m I M N O J T•S• z 2 y N �10 L C w W Z -�q 106T 'tly ^ N ti y y AVE p S�THf 1 r A SE + y 106TH WE SE Y4 O N Z m N N N� T 106TH = Z '�J .� O O� V� N � is N I ) 109TH y y O I lOTH -04 PL SE D 11oT BOTH AVE SE 110TH D�PL H AVE SE N PL SE O w M y O� (PW m Z II2TH AVE SE I LIAJ Z N r • uri y yr w m rZp f�2 m a© 1137H PL rjt o c( 114TH PL SE 1 11 TH q +, R m A SE �� i m I15TH rJ 115TH I157H A z IV PL SE AVE SE MEB r y � N ' O y N (AN N m m coy N !' w N � N T 119 C iE M r y 120TH .0VE SE r J UPPER GARRISON CREEK CONVEYANCE 2 IST AVE s,E \ �W4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 98TH AVENUE DRAINAGE REPAIR/111TH-112TH AVENUE WALKWAYS/5TH AVENUE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT/110TH AVENUE SEWER EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, thoriza ion to accept as complete the contract with Mer-Con, Inc. or the 98th Avenue Drainage Repair/111th- 112th Avenue Walkw ys/5th Avenue Pavement Replacement and 110th Avenue Sewer Ext sion project and release of retainage after State releases The original contract was $130, 426. 48 . The final construction cost was $124 , 238. 27. 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. 3G T"i ?7 1 r i° 'ns. a .[/Pii.fQ.' - u t We" RYE' . •. S STH,RVE n � ; *M; N'i 2N0 AVE w IVE 1 S 2N0-AVE f H N z e MID a AVE pp z tP alb N .� fpJ I 2 N G �S H T -" R AIIDlffd+O Ss a 1 .> XfMNEBEC ^AVC LWHK RYE. - i AYE ] °a ntnnx Sl'CHNf„ hR n � ' Kfxs eN '�^ Yax OE YAN�EA AVEPA07lEETAYE 9.+CPRTCP PL (a , 1 LEEQAA R'� A J {(/ -- qd�M AYE ! CAE T AN, m w �.- '� ^ iTb J y HAZEL AYE i t h2 FAR- ..9 s r a c y ACYDRtk ' Ave FIEL am NALiOP AYE £GLtS rl VeEx - > SIfY.H14 RESTER .r- 9ZNfl j _a ��1 NRPLEN086 i � s z D, s S � kdesALT off 34TH AV&-S Ot,K n �S cy6 _ '1� IEST� Ei RI 95TK PL _ Frl `�D' + 96TH PYE 5 rm-�n -�SY �• S- 9 AYE 9 96TX K m z 4'!T �u � .Y .AAA.._ b, •�Q _. � .. r � 38 H AVE1 9ATN RYE 3 -` NQ$N N � � W =n n II ¢¢ 4irN li-. � S00T11 iii AVE SE S AVE t4tST AYE S£ a }= 1O4TA AVE S8 . •-,. 'm 105iX lOSTH RYE m 1057n ti c m N t95TN AVE m r'3 J4SJ �i m ti Jos t U S l"a( J JJi' � H .I4ATN PYE Sf � TQDTH SE 3ntl � tl "10 YIIOin AVE a .. ,. r S P m * a Jnpp ltlTR AVE SF �► '^ i 3d � 1ttTN RV I 'co M o, - x> �a x �Q AVE SEA �_ , Y ,4ltTX ACR I i]rN AVE SC ltsTN;K r Q. 114TH AVE SE a , `Yj �I OUR 9L �t Ile AYE rg� 'Y7STM -$ L �. nL'sc 1ISTNcr zj •i1BTH•AVB`.S8 1 M ?>� �'�',�❑ i ..m 1 IIi tti '� IITrn rL n eTr Iler" AVE SE At s` 98th AVE DRAINAGE REPAIR/lllth-112th 9� m - IIYrr yill AVE WALKWAYS/5th AVE PAVEMENT . � rL `b ( REPLACEMENT/110th AVE SEWER EXTENSION ?4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NO. 26 (MEADOW RIDGE ELEMENTARY) SAtE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, ,4uthorizati to accept the bill of sale for Kent Elementary School #26 (Meadow Ridge Elementary) submitted by Kent School District o. 415 for continuous operation and maintenance of 2, 88 feet of water main and 1, 920 feet of sanitary sewer impr vements and release of bonds after expiration period. The project is located at 27710 108th Avenue SE. 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. 3H m a 1 ICY. FirIG bT� SAS < ,W SE�254TH < t N k h\ .�y KENTi.MERIDIAN 'iSR.H1. SCHOOL li �! ^. Y ... i n Vv� SE 256TH ET '��y1YJ . • a 30 ie � n . 29 8 257 x F!y 9 W !� .+) 3f q < S.E_Z 57th s8TFE S Ze>rN `\ s w KENT SC}. y ADMINISTR if r r m �t1H }.•J.'�: W ITT\ SE 59THSE _ u 1 SE 260TH ST 260TH Q` LST - 2Y� J ST <E} �th60TN PL / SEQUOIA JR.H1. 21 R �, 262ND PL ~` SCHOOL ➢ a L t x e " sE C7 \ SE 264TH `` ST �-- SE 264TH ST •5�26-- x 65 ,� as 516 a PL a SE 265TH < > Watef SE 2 TH PL .etese ST SE 267TH ST F SE 267TH za ! `� W Si W SE 26dTH q w > a 268TH O< 0 cl.�, " m N E 26aTH ✓� ST O ,y>/ �` \ SE 269TH _ �.V Sc_ x °�AST- i > H > T♦ , ♦, SE 2';rH '� '^r < SE ~ < 270TH SE 270TH �' ♦ S7 W - W7 0 SE 27IS7 J w >-_ u rCL 3 29 sE 272ND ST 2 29 28 SE a 3 zno PL 32 32 W p a a a e a p Z jSE 274 PROJECT LOCATION 274TH ST > < ST < SE SEo tP N a ST W b F = SE .. 2767H ST Yr N r NE TREE .. r M ENITA tY SE 277TN iClfOOL N SE 280 TH ST ^ 26 W PVT RD a In N SE 281ST ST W yL SE a 282ND ST N W > Q m SE 284TH MEADOW RIDGE ELEMENTARY (KENT SCHOOL 4426) �11 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: METRO 6-YEAR SERVICE PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This program has been presented to the Ken ransit Advisory Board and they have supported the Multi- Center's approach to new service in the south end of King Count T} h--- hear recommended by the Public Works Committe Metro's Multi-Center Alterna- tive per its Six Year Service Program, a s 5 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum, Metro's Report on Six Year Plan & Service Alternatives and Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 9, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director QJ�U SUBJECT: Metro Six Year Service Program At the last South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBD) meeting, Metro presented its six year service program. The Public Works Department has invited Diane Harper, a long range planner, to address the Public Works Committee on the new service changes proposed by Metro for the next six years. This information has also been presented to the Kent Transit Advisory Board which passed a resolution to support both the Baseline Service and Multi-Centers approach to new service in the south end. I have attached a copy of the outline circulated at the SCATBD meeting for your information. ACTION: Recommendation to City Council to support Metro's multicenter alternative per its six year service program. a qQ qQ - 8 CD b H x x O n � ~- vs N e N C r y a x x O cu C o w Q. co A M CD i CD . p W 0 —s o CD CD c. O C �' ►� CD A O ^� O co CD A � O CD r r ¢. a CD Q-CD C�7 a z CD r CD y � O o o 0 En CD G1. A .O O •�7 p •r ❑ cD a -e 0. CD CD Cr' CD CD C. •• O y G. `.3 O aqaQ G3- CD °' y O Q. tAD CD �. �. A O A UQ CD A Ll] (AD .b � � .O=. CAD �n .".� ° y. .._. Cp ¢1 CD 0 CD p O. .a_„ � CAD to � ^ N / C� XCL p pa 9 — ... ^. CCD CD D y L3 ° M p CL p CO (IQ O 'C CLAD n = n O z � o a C� CD y cD a. �' CD �. r, r* cn O cn cCDi cn w Co CD D ¢L a, 0 * r� a CL O o o _ _ z y ~ cn CD En CD FS r o CD �. CD = �oEn CDCD O d CD p M � y N QQ T ^! p = w O CD cnn c`nCD 0 � o. a 0 A ° CD a c Q a rn C O p CD ~ A o C) a) CD 'O CD cn CD a fo CD o' `� R. cn Z G ti O C C co .. C a CD CL �` CD y c o CD _ A C D cs. a &co m "a cr m D W ,� 0 \~ \ � � - ° � � q § / 0 0 \ ƒ « k k0. 0 _. 2 § \ C 5 � ■ M . § k R 0 coo § ) k (:r En � a 2 00-4 @ & ( # n 2 0 0 § CD• % ,j 0 q k CD 0 \. CD \ En/ t q g 2 = I U k ° 2 CDco§_ R § 0 � k ƒ 0 coK )0 co / 0 cn \ a CD 9 P3 o § § # 0 7 En R = CA ° CD 0 CL o CD w k - 2 E 2 CDk § �. § A � - § § A k 7 �. a ' C Q w R ... x x. CD CD cra o o CD B cn C' CAD <C. y r. .y CD K CD K CD A+ ¢� 0 QQ CCD ,= R CDCA CD �r'pQ3� � � CDp CD 0 En ' C CD fn ". A A W CD `C `7.�. r (D A N. O n C S = -0 W p0�� A �. C 0 y p CD oCD CD CD C b cD w q c� ' ° 0 a � C 5 '°o CAD o � � z CD ff o o. � CD z UQ CD = r. �, °< , R. cAD .. CD o 'C �. 0 o CD m � A cn .. v, CD N CD CD 0 CD CD cn 0 CD 06 CD O y C C O A CD A ° C A 0 CD CD °CD Cl. 0 `J AW CDCD CD rn y CD y AD VCCDD O Q O 0 a p A� .. ��. A+ (D '"t C. I� •� n n r3• O., CD O n t CDEn CAD rn' `C En .=4 ¢. cn y C p CD Z C E3 9' o � � � � �. CD tiCcoy '+ CD �'a CD �< CD En CD o cn C CD = c�. r. cn CD in.0 co CD En CD V CD Vn p .~► A A 'O N 0 CD co m Vn cn CD CD CD CD CD N A a CL ¢. CDEn r. En CD co y CD �. y 0 z CD p+ 1.02. ! p CCD �+ Q CL M CD A = CD EnCD O' f D Co CAD .Arks o A CD w o• `AC U N En v' Cr0 CAD CD cn 'y a as co CD 6- cD coo � �c 'b cs. co "o PIN �o cD C >e � w cD o o � co ~ ara CD C CD ., CD CD CD CI�Q �C 'd � CD Q y O CD,� cn O O CD O .- n CD N Q, .`3 ram' A N N .0 (D o p ... ^• O CD CDcD N0 C S 'C � �� A A y. y .n CD CD rG O O b CD co 4= CD• H CD � CD ¢, e+ .'3 CD F, S. O A' = M �. r+ O y A CD 'LS CD O y' z CD CD r.. �eli r+ . CA p U0 (D R. �. `O, � A En k CD cnCD z 0.9 C, � � 0- 1 `� � z A �. CD c. = � CD COD = CD OCD co 0 n CD CD 0 CL CD CD 0 CD CL co 0 CD N C O CDD ( G ` ' Q. .0 CD CD �. y P7 CD G O w CD CD .�. A (D A Q. "� CD �. n ►ter] p O n CDCD pV < y x G En `G �' C- to y C p CD h C 5 F n CD �' '. Cr 0 CD 0 O (D p -ry En N O y 'A"h "C CD 0 CD 0 (Ta "C CCD w CD CD A En � e. Vn O CD 00 CDti 'O En CD CD cn 0 CA too O to CL Q'5. CD CD CD �' CD y CD O w W (20 CDD .O A O N CD Q O CD w p, p,. O CD A E3. A C O En O r� V_ En ~' "�' CD ~ CD 5 CD5' Q- CD Ao 0 CD 20 wO' vEn w En y U NUq Cro CD ►CD N S S 0 (p K N CD n Cl. O `r CD CD �5. N' co tj C CD D C O C (D O N .., ." CD F+• O /� VI V V _ CD Aco !0 CD)CD �• � 0 CD ~ 1� 0 C CDCD CD r� cD CD ., o �„ as CD ., CD CD (D aCD s a CD w Q- CD �. o w o cn o o ►� CD �, O C1 D y o CD o w y p- r O �] (9 n x n ao r CD o CD CD K fD co o � ¢• o a; Cl.CD r. 0 CL n0-4 o w a a o ^r CDa. o b EnQ. En O co co En E CD ?' CD - N •, n cu En o o En CD CD o y CD a A c � CD r-W '�. w '� N [~D "s A `d 0 O °a, y o c cn r ALE Ts p O p 0 f�D "AZ .may (D ' y n'C 0 O p 0 /n Zi O QQ C4 cn C4 C Z x O N lT1 Cl7 C CD O p O CD O �- CD (, n ^ R cCD CD CD D 0 Z v� 0 CD v' Q- Ccn ~ O ._. �. O O� O n A CD n .�. ~ C7 f� CDCD "n t7 CD CO o CD0 CD /r Ln Cb T CD E b CL O A N O CD `E 0 b ' O 0-4 O O O <D aocr a y 0 CD Ln w o A fD cn O y A w f9 �y J c 7 n cr CL n G N v -o m a CD C O O .p N g ° cn 3 m = C p m -0 _0H 0) CO p CD O 0 c c m c � < N N O N .Z) 3 a N m A 07 d m -0 — o < 0 o < o m Tl o N TI � � � v Now a CD CD °' � m � u, 33 :° �. o � c ° � c Z O �1 O r: CD 0 CL n N n o 7 C C = 61 CD - p) (D y 3 m m e (n m c 2 yam ° 3 0 0 3 N 0 � m cn aq � so _a' ° N3CCD 0 aoo400 C N. m a0 o m 3 o- O m 41 � 3 3 M � v 0 3 O N < O O O N N Q 3 a. A 3 Q C N Q O N -w fD -w 'o m -+. .+ C c fA O m C c r. m C 0 mCA rw 'O O D) O N O m N 0) m (<D N N z• O �' (�f7 o •< O m 3 y o o ° �' m o m 3 m fn CD o "a o �o o N m Nv o � c o � c n OCD — m O O0 m O rt �O .»� x p) N N /�+ 30 CD v N 3 O 0 N O ^' 0 O O N N O Co N m (O 4 O_ m � CD _ o � N �` N 3 0z m am v m O � °o— o � � iw c (Dm m < d � � � ai (n z N 7 m N Q w t m0 7Z =to N N O O O rj � c i n n N �. O .m. O N ( C N 3 N 0-4 CD m G ov_ � � > >' 33 m oc' N y p p 3 7 �' IIl c Q 0 j 0 CD X EnN O� CD CD CD N (D d N N N ^ O NQ a ^- N � ONoOQ "v3m ° _ = °. 0ro � 0o- N � 3n m m 0 c m 0 O X O � X Q m O � p = d m 0 0 0 ID o =. ° yam m o Qv 3 o m m � x m • 2. < o C N N m 7 N x N �• D _a � m w < n N m N 3 ai 5 = rf CD •< N .° N r: N �: O N m o m y D_ c m O m y 0 n. "' N m m (D n fD m .� m m 3 m c0 '�" 7 � N m N N .c.. ^' C N " N N N t"n � y 3 m m 3 � o � 6cmi o (gym � y m m 0 CL � � m m � m 3 y-rr 3a .° 3 m -aaQ3 0 3 ? o o� En SSA d o ay CD 3 5 o m l< o. 3 v°, m m 3 � m o m 3 =r;w 0l< cr two Z D) .c-. m M y = Q. ,�.,., N a y C•. D) Q p N m co 7 x m m `< � m K CD CCD y m N M y a a ': CD "+ fA d ."« CD Q m tD CD 'o N - C z CA La. a D -., N o c n. � = d m N 0' 0 CD 3 �<� CD @ 3 uN, m o r a = CL CD a y m m`� 0 03 y 3 3 Cn � < y ' �' CDf0 � c 0 m m Qo ° o ^� X o 3 � m w 3 -3 ° 0-0 CD w oC m o o ccD :3 W 3o r ° .. 3 < m 3 0 m y O O c z D) cL ,,,, fp N O p CD n � .c_— ? ° � mv o 0 3 o N N � � v. go _y D .-« m N 'o n O p N d d N p m p '�? � C d 0 m � "' m --I 7 Q c -� m N 61 N "O O "' ry m CD 7 j N m m y m m d 3 p ? 3 = -� 'O 7' .. O CD 3 d .-« 0 N ,-. 3 � - 07 N_ 3o vOm �. 0 d — N z .. m CD ° 7' N 'O —.0 C' 0 0 2 3 �' m d 3 N m p O. O N 33 ° :3 3mn3 -, 0I a, `° o nN ma N _. oo Nm � m `DN � 3 <� � 33 m � � � m C ?t0 m v m CD CD O fl O m `< 0 `� m 0 m N 7 a CD ;u (A v N ? o 0) O fn a) g to G m cD 0 CA <(D CD CD (D cD N .Z7 a -1 n' C C 0 fOn ID v (D 0 a d A = dT v oa _m oNmo -n tr cT ELtth 0 3 3 �. (� (n CD 0 (D X C (D (D CD N (D < n 7c N. (D z N X, CL 0 0 (D 0.'O a 'O Q C (D p (D (D O M (D y 0 7 ° CDN o(0 y am z a) I A C Z -� - N = = O (D F (D O N Q N o Co o O C CD O .�, � N 01 (0 N d '� 'D A C • N 7C d ... z .•.. N O (D (D > O A fD x CL N O n n 0 (D fl: a C (D ,... 0) X. (D O O 0 o ? ^! z � j C v � 0CD aox(aC (on CL fDOciv (a (D m C n N mCD N C o CD 3 — CD A(D � 7 7 A N C CD (n CD �CD U) • QQ y G7 (D CD O CD C r =rN O A (D O m A X O N (D N(O (D O O N 7 N CD "O Q 2) :3 0. a N �. .. E3 :2 p� _ 70.4 (gyp X 61 d (U—D C O" 7 O O d N C 7 -w a N pt (D N 7 F 0) N CD X CD< 01 (D n X. N (D � N O o Cl N N t 7 O CD r O M. fD � �i �.v � fD � zQioo � ZNmm � M (dD p: * j am =': p �' " n m O a n n 'CD `A" N N (D 7 (p v n " m 0 m o d QQ N N E (D " fD � 0 f� A O _ CA •+ ° O 7 N " (D C N CD A -0 7 2 o fD = o N N 0) A O N '+ X (o .. w N 'V 3 y N �. mQ o occ m mn m N < aM fD 0) CD O (D (D d _, O A z <m a. N a m 7 � n' m ° m 3 r. o ° ^ N AN N ° _ CD CD N N O 3 2 coo * CD . aR- d (D D 3m � (dD mm 0Nm3yn (ND ° Nrti (D r CD = � 3 � (�n N m �i4 � o � d 0°izNm :3 = > " -0 (D tp 0) :-: N (A CD01 (D _. = (D d n N (D fH o 'D n (D < (AN a (D C d ^" N CD '= 3 p-O y. C 0 r N 0-`< 7 O A (D (D < ynZ O ' D D y faOo A D ( 0 O pD o _ O D ° a (D °N N N A C NA <N,(C° Dm -0 'iZ A > N ° n z � w S� _ v o am m � -" CL W 3 0 ° m (D o " (-n " (D = w � (CQ O d 0 to :3 o = � � R ro n k • q ■ 2 / \ 0 C ) k 6 E o W 3 n 3. ; E CD ' E § g ƒ ƒ 2 g k 0 CD CL3 2 $ \ a 2 . \ \ / \ / / ƒ \ \ cr �. ƒ _§ c . � e 2 . rL E ƒ f q � % A R / § > M. E ' o / D 0 _ e _ 4 E @ / 9 § 7 \ � ® Q la. ) ci fA K I t ƒ Cl) / R 7 � I § ƒ � 3 \ \ . \ G m. co » � . CD a � \ 0 \ � ƒ � . ± a a, ems' �•; � „tp,` r `° e y rh � co CV CD C � o n � r Q O � � rA ►� zn � a- c� -:. 17s T Y_ "„ • • • • r. • • A • • fA O A f9 ❑_ o � 3 y � o t?, _S "".. CCD �/- ,�.�• '... F.) _ ni O -0) C A nco ^ cOi M n a r' � ? 0O N Vi n' O ai O N C O vOi In O C w .7 O G c� mCD W co O OQ• 0- !O/J �' a r✓ Al y �' +"1 H O O w v, a 0 o cp CA el) 0 w 0 o y "� i .o 0 o C o m 0 R 0 0 0 ►Y 0 rA 0 ca - O o D o a. y• O CD C) CAD T.' i^S. O CD r. C7 '..1' 7 �• p• O K a+ ^� A O .O QQ •3 a. 0•'OeD w O `'� O O n ' .j. O H M H O M rA CD 0 cD OQ CD eD Oa G CD � Aft .may+ � � �• � y O .J .�+ G R L`D � .b �. ?�, CA 1� CD r. CD pr ° , CD a rf Dig 2 :r CD O f� C1 CD a CS .D •.a rA m CD CD p O �' -. b rrA pi < O' C, o 0 co 0' O CD Cp fn N •�• �. .'3+ „Z, O• H O " � TQ 0 O y CD `rri O �• 'CS y `G CD p o v, oo cm C AS. r. CD CD 2 O CD co t O r. O c CD (D 'B .fir •J CD .+ C y O LV r .t rA 0 CD y CD OQ r w 0. co c a n eas 0 0pr ?; CD �' ao CD • <__ GL �' •�' CD QQ w A A N b... _ ��\ ,�, � � ,• � F ��y'� , I��,.,�� . �.� I ; P.� I,� Ni LL -.a, — r 1. � I � — i •ll.� f tis�� JI �._J J�'i _ i jam'__� �f� \� .. �- -� I I i I i r:•� � ��':--I '� � `,' / ' � . - �- �- , � , � 11• ^I. t - �\ /�--�^mil. l � i/ i c - �.,,,mow-,:_—� �` 1 I � '� � t�j r ! �-.i-�` Q�j - f �� 7 I I 1 �\�.-.�, G•�, J`� � ``-- �•` �.'f�_'l �.�1�' C J � ter: ...�"" .� �.T'_ I !1 .—. —r \_/��-Y` _-.-�V, - .91 �,�.- CP Li 7-1 LK 1:J•r '•'_�(C<. f/ V la' — ,yl.�. —fir �S •y� V � f �� a'L rt 1 ♦r � f two - y1� ''•`�'! L -,�'� L� .o I i I • 11 �f�^'r- _- = I I ' `-�..lj� 71 -77 �r �._...; i � - r _�.- _„ yr 'i � � ' • I ..I 1 1 Rv 01 vp . 1, J� ' � \ � t`"4 — --� — _.'`�_.:-•,L_�_ r—r._ � � �% �; l.. �'. �• I '� . �r�r=:•i I . ; - v' j � _ , Via.. _ ::.:;:ij'� 1 { 'a!��+m._� •�—.� � 1 "' Imo••-i I �- � ��` r � ti�_'�"� �t ^� 1, - '"Lf 1' \� "jt:;'—'�1 - \,\ Tom'--, i �- _ _. •'---�v�Y�yi�;-� I I = '�..r- � -.� � � �rf- ' ;3p, .� i L2 IT I S I 1 I i j 1 �� '�-_.+��_�'' V r_ 1_ ), � -- _�` � %•ti1 �� i J %T i r - ��, �:•i � �� j' t I I r I _\ T� � \ H J t^ i lI ( I /•I r .1 t I ti 1 I' .� .-� I I � 1 i t I ' ' •p�� i m �_v !. j 1�;�1- ��\� � 11 `.!'.�� ' /�.yl�t'.>„ I � I;.�f � it ,,, t:, �: }lr 31=�✓ � ✓i ill Af i\ Lp , _ �- .— -- ',—. � _ '•.ram-j ,—:�°''.- — _ _ _ I I ,• F :. I ' .:�. �y _L —�' � � - I � � _ t'..-- � � _ � u: - mac` •'.: � � is 1 I :\ — •� > I• , '� �� — i ice— �`�•� � � __ L^� ME - M5 • I. Fyn t—_a r; � --! / ��.1 -� � .:. I Vr �.�!'� � �I� � �✓✓ i ` O,� r �l - •J^TQ✓J�� y✓. 1 -��j 1 I � Imo• i AL r, 7 _ �' _ mil : � __ - '- �rZS✓ - \? -� ` ��,�`,�`1�� V� \. - '' - �_ \.. �- r�Q � _ — _ / ! '� •� � — _ Y �.y, ^ i ,r,.• r� I - r � ;q _ ma`s" :asa _�7Tj�.7J 7-1 1777 --y-- . /�" ..:,fit it I _•I / Ytt✓�_ ,� r _ It�_" -77 -j - �� _ : -' �� • i`- 'ram-,.�= _ ' } C r" = - - `� � ' ( � J � ^1 �'�--�— its ff yl cr C w Q p (Apt ^ O. H a 0 v X CA n W a PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PRESENT: JUDY WOODS ED WHITE TIM CLARK JACK SPENCER DON WICKSTROM MR & MRS RUST GARY GILL MCl/METRO REPRESENTATIVES TOM BRUBAKER DIANE HARPER, METRO ABSENT: PAULMANN JIM BENNETT Metro Six -Year Service Program Wickstrom introduced Diane Harper, representative of Metro Transit Department. Diane briefly went over Metro's Report on the Six Year Plan and Service Alternatives for the South King County Sub -Area. She explained that Metro needs to adopt a Six Year Plan whether or not the RTA passes. Metro therefore is asking for guidance from communities as to what that Plan should reflect. Diane noted that by getting guidance on just the bus plan, when the RTA vote occurs we can very quickly go either way and submit this to the County Council. Metro has prepared two alternatives; Baseline and Multi -Center. At this time Diane highlighted some points in the report noting that this is not an increase in service based upon taxes. The funding for this new service is from Metro's shift in the capital budget to the service budget that Executive Locke and County Council adopted last Spring. She noted that if the RTA gives a positive vote, than there will be more resources to work from. Diane provided maps explaining the different routes in this community. Clark stated that commuters ability to accept the change in transfers, also is based on their 'comfort level' when that transfer is being made. Clark asked if there was an attempt to accommodate that as the system requires more transfers. Diane explained if the service plan is adopted, the capital budget would be re -prioritized to make additional transfer centers with better lighting and security. Wickstrom said that this has been before SCATBD and at this time everyone is gathering their votes. Committee unanimously recommended Council support Metro's Multicenter Alternative per its Six Year Service Program. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TACOMA'S SECOND SUPPLY PIPELINE SUMMARY STATEMENT: Tacoma has requested that Kent assist with the funding of the desi n of the Tacoma Second Supply Pipeline Project, of which our share would be $791,000. This project has long been anticipated to be future water supply source#. Due to the Department of Ecology's present moratorium on new water right certificates, emr future sources are presen�y limited to either Tacoma's project or the develop- ment of ,Impoundment Project. �uyy„r za�i0�or the Mayor be authe - zed to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Tacomar- relating to funding Kent's share of the design work associated with Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project¢ LLpon cov\cLArwre ice of (1,e Pw1011c �04-vs b r'ecfio� c"^d •r-he- �th>r�z as rec-ovvnvvNe-ncLed by r-t.e Pwlolit Worts Corv.rn�tlee. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum, Tacoma Public Utilities Memorandum and Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. MR ro UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: /✓fie CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3J DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom & RE: Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project As you know, Tacoma's above referenced project has long been anticipated to be one of our future water supply sources. With the State's (Dept of Ecology) present moratorium new water right certificate, our future sources are presently limited to either Tacoma's project or the development of our Impoundment Project. Since the environmental issues associated with the Impoundment Project pushes its development lead time out to 5 - 8 years, it is critical that Tacoma's project keeps moving ahead. To do so, Tacoma has requested assistance with the funding of the design (see attached letter). Our share of said design cost is $791,000. As you are aware since 1985, moneys on a yearly basis have been set aside to fund the City's share of this project. Presently approximately $9,500,000 has been accumulated therefore. As such, money is not the problem. The issue, as explained in Tacoma's letter, is that there are risks that could either delay or stop the project altogether. Were the project stopped, the money spent now would thus be lost. While there are these risks, our supply options are extremely limited. To head off a potential future water supply shortage, we need to take whatever action is necessary to assure timely development of our next source. As such, the Public Works Department recommends participation in funding of the design of the Pipeline Project. So as not to place total reliance of this pipeline project later this year, we will be proceeding with Engineering and Environmental studies on the Impoundment Project. Additionally, and in spite of the Water Right Certificate moratorium we will also be pursuing some well development options. ACTION: Upon concurrence therewith of the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, authorize the Mayor to execute a memorandum of Understanding with Tacoma relating to funding Kent's share of the design work associated with Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project. Tacoma Public Utilities January 27, 1995 Don Wickstrom Director of Public Works City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 Second Supply Pipeline Request for Short Term Project Funding Dear Mr. Wickstrom: ,IAN 3 0 1 9A95 EN. 114nthINU DIEP l Mark Cris.,on Director 3628 ` )uth ?nth Strut P.O. Bo. noo- Tacoma, WA 9S411-000; Divisions Li0it Water Belt Line The purpose of this letter is to formalize the short-term funding request that was discussed with the South King County utilities in November 1994 and with the Seattle Water Department in January 1995. Project -to -Date Funding The development of the Second Supply Pipeline began in the late 1960s as the Pipeline 5 project. As the project developed through the mid 1970s, easements, land and right-of-ways were acquired for the pipeline route. Water rights were obtained in the early 1980s and modifications were made to the headworks facilities for flow control and piping to accommodate Pipeline 5. In the late 1980s the environmental assessments and permitting were initiated. Preliminary pipeline design and final permitting began in the 1990s and construction mitigation agreements were obtained from King County. This project activity has required a cumulative investment by Tacoma through 1994 of almost $29 million. Funding Need The funding range discussed at the November 1994 meeting to continue with the project on the current schedule was $4 million to $7 million. Since that time, we have worked with our consulting team to develop a more detailed amount that would allow the project to proceed until bonds are sold (attachment). The project budget includes program management, preliminary design completion, permitting, Don Wickstrom January 27, 1995 Page 2 pipeline and headworks final design. The estimated project funding for 1995 is $6,878,000. The project is currently divided into eight construction schedules and bidding is anticipated to begin in late 1995. Most of the design will be completed in mid 1995 with final design completed in early 1996. In the event final project funding cannot be obtained in 1995, we anticipate asking project partners for interim 1996 funding. The estimated project funding for 1996 to complete the final design is $1,321,700. Funding Request Permitting is the critical path to proceeding with the project on the current schedule. It is anticipated that bonds can be sold during the fall of 1995. In the meantime we are requesting the project participants to assist Tacoma with funding the 1995 project work of $6,878,000. The funding assistance has been tentatively allocated by the supply flow that you have requested. The following table shows the supply flow request and the associated project funding allocation. Interim Project Funding Cost Allocation Project Capacity % Share Based Cost Participants (mgd) On Flow Covington 3.46 8.7% $598,000 Kent 4.62 11.5% 791,000 Lakehaven 4.62 11.5% 791,000 KCWD 9111 2.31 5.8% 399,000 Seattle Water Dept. 25.00 62.5% 47299,000 Total 40.00 100.0% $6,878,000 Payment Schedule We are asking that each project participant provide the interim funding through their respective utilities. We anticipate working with you to develop a monthly payment structure based on the cash flow projections. The payments would end when the project bonds have been obtained. Don Wickstrom January 27, 1995 Page 3 Financial Risk Tacoma needs to obtain interim funding during the first quarter of 1995 in order to stay on schedule with permitting and design efforts. It does not appear that final cost share agreements between the participants will have been finalized at that time. We are proposing to use a Memorandum of Understanding to cover this interim funding. We have tried to document the known risks that might delay or stop this project. These include: • Potential difficulties with the Corps of Engineer Section 10/404 permit application. We expect the public notice on this permit to be issued for comment on March 3, 1995. We may be required by the Corps of Engineers to conduct a NEPA environmental review of the project. We have completed substantial SEPA work and believe this should suffice for environmental review. The NEPA requirement would potentially add another year's work to the permitting process. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe could potentially intervene in the permitting process, or other unanticipated studies may be required as a result of concerns raised by public comment. • Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is considering listings for bull trout and Dolly Varden fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service is considering listings for steelhead and coho. Delay would occur due to studies needed as a result of possible ESA listings. • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Intervention. After three years of negotiation with the tribe, we have not yet reached final agreement. If agreement is not reached before the Corps permit is issued for public notice, the tribe may choose to comment on the permit. The tribe could also choose to intervene by lawsuit. 0 Delays in finalizing contracts with the partners. Don Wickstrom January 27, 1995 Page 4 • Elected officials resistance because impact to ratepayers is too large. We are working very hard at this time to understand and overcome these possible obstacles. We are currently meeting with all the regulatory and resource agencies to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the Second Supply Project and associated benefits. We continue to receive positive support and preliminary indications that permit issuance by mid-1995 is likely. However, it is important to point out that the contribution we are asking for is subject to the risks outlined above. In the worst case scenario, our collective investment becomes a sunk cost which may not be recovered. Response Please review our interim project funding proposal with your Councils and/or your respective Boards. We will be contacting you next week to schedule a group meeting to discuss this interim project funding proposal in more detail. Sincerely, Kenneth . Merry " Superintendent Water Division KJM:sf sspfmdg Attachments Sh,_,.1 Tacoma Second Supply Project Final Design and Program Budgets Program Grand Task No. Description Otr 1'95 Otr 2'95 Otr 3'95 Oar 4'95 Total'95 Our 1'96 Oar 2'96 CIO 96 Gtr 4'96 Total'96 Total 101 Program Admin&Mgt S56.500 $56.500 $56500 $56,500 $226,000 $59,300 $59,300 $59,300 $59300 $237,200 $463,200 201 Muckleshoot Tasks $29,500 $37,000 S29,500 522,000 $116,000 $15, 000 $15000 $7.500 $37,500 S155,500 202 Partner Agreements $30,900 $13,000 $43,000 $$4, 00 202 Water Rights $3.000 $1.500 $40,000 $30.000 $20,000 $4,500 $90,000 $25,000 $20.000 $20,000 $65,000 5,500 $15,000 New Public Process $2.500 $2,500 $7,500 $7.500 $7,500 $2.500 $25,000 $27,500 New H.H. Interim Storage $115,000 New Bond Support Documents $20,000 $90,000 $5,000 $115,000 $100,000 $200.000 Contingency Total $139,000 $238,000 $121,000 $101,000 $100,000 $699,000 $106,800 $101,800 $94,300 561,800 $464,700 S1,163,700 Completion of Preliminary Design and Permits/ Special Studies Tasks Grand Task No. Description Our 1'95 Oh 2'95 or, 3'95 Of, 4'95 Total'95 Our 1'96 Our 2'96 Otr 3'96 Our 4'96 Total'96 Totat Complete Preliminary Design $0, 00 Complete Remaining Work $120,500 $120,500 560,000 $6 Support Permit AptMties $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $60,000 Permits/ Special Studies $ Fed Way CMP Implem. $7,500 $7,500 $15.000 37,,500 $00 P&SS Comoff ack $22.500 $15,000 $37,500 $28,000 Crete Coord/Cone Des $28,000 $28,000 $65,000 Oflsite Prelim Design $65.000 $65,000 152000 011stte Final Design $17.000 $35,000 $52,000 $10:000 Blg Sops Scom Analysis $f 0,000 $10,000 Contingency $250.000 $250,000 S250,000 Total $545,500 $77,500 $15,000 $638,000 5638,000 Final Design Grand Task No. Description Our 1'95 Otr2'95 Otr 3'95 Gtr 4'95 Total'95 Our 1'96 Our 2'96 Our 3'96 Our 4'96 Total'96 Total Schedule A: Military Read to P4 - Lower Reach (8.5 Miles) Subtotal Schedule A $150,000 $573,000 $500,000 $1,223,000 $1,223,000 Schedule B: 196th to Military Road - Middle Reach (10.7 Miles) Subtotal Schedule 8 $200,000 $934,000 $1,134,000 $315,000 $315,000 $1,449,000 Schedule C: Headworks to 196th - Upper Reach (12.6 Miles) .,_I if uAn nnn tern non t1 Ten nnn $52.00n $52,000 S1,792,000 - Subtotal Sche Schedule D: Microtunneling Subtotal Schedule D $600,000 $36,000 $636,000 $636,000 Schedule E: off -Site Mitigation Subtotal Schedule E $76,000 $75,000 $75,000 Schedule F: Small Contractor Set -Aside at - Subtotal Schedule F $126,000 $53,000 $179,000 5179,000 Schedule G: Small Contractor Set -Aside M2 Subtotal Schedule G $105,000 $206,000 $311,000 S311,000 Schedule H: Reve<fetation Nursery Stock Subtotal Schedule H $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 Total Final Design $225,000 $573,000 $2,695,000 $1,370,000 $4,863,000 $598,000 $259,000 $857,000 $5,720,0001 leadworks Grand ask No. Description Gtr 1'95 Otr 2'95 Otr 3'95 Gtr4'95 Total'95 Dar 1'96 Otr 2'96 Our 3'96 Of, 4'96 Total'96 Total Total Headworks $339,000 $339,000 $678,000 $678,00 Grand Total: Program, Pipeline & Headworks $909,500 $888,500 $3,170,000 $1,610.000 $6,878,000 $704,800 $360,800 $94,300 S61,800 $1,321,700 $8,199,700 DESBUD2.XLS Page I Printed 1/26/95 regarding access to their facilities or conduits. However, he said that if the City desires these conduits, and it is done in a fashion that it does not interfere with Metro's construction plans, particularly the schedule, MCI will install this facility for the city at cost plus 10%. Clark asked Wickstrom for background in terms of what the City has done with other utilities in relationship to this sort of situation. Wickstrom stated that primarily, thru a working relationship, we have the utility companies install conduits; we furnish the conduits and they install it as part of their work or, they would do the whole thing. Clark noted that we do have a sincere interest in getting that other conduit laid and if you are going to open the streets, it makes sense to lay it while you are doing this. Hagood stated that we would have a problem if we do that for the City free of charge. He referenced state statutes with regards to preferential treatment; that puts MCI in bad form with other entities that we are in negotiations with. Committee unanimously made the recommendation to revise the franchise consistent with the discussions of today's meeting subject to the approval of MCI and the City Attorney's office for presentation with those revisions at the next Council meeting and to be presented for approval. Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project Wickstrom stated that in trying to get the Tacoma Pipeline built, they were running out of money in terms of the bonds etc., and this will delay their project so they have asked participants which are, WD #111, Federal Way Water & Sewer, Covington Water and Kent to all share in the design cost, our cost being $791,000 for the design of the pipeline. He said as noted in their letter to us, there are risks involved and it could be a lost cost because of the problems with different agencies involved, including the Muckleshoot Tribe Authority He said that this project is extremely important to us to meet our long term water needs and this is our next source. Because of the water right moratorium at D.O.E. essentially the impoundment would be our only source which has another long lead time due the environmental issues associated with it. He stated that we need to move on this project; we have the money and it is one of our future options available. Committee unanimously recommended that upon concurrence of the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, authorize the Mayor to execute a memorandum of Understanding with Tacoma relating to funding Kent's share of the design work associated with Tacoma;'s Second Supply Pipeline project. Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Wickstrom stated that this agreement sets the tone of cooperation for future supply. This 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT 2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, utho ation for the Mayor to execute the South King County tonal Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. This Agreement establishes a cooperative frame- work for the development of future water supply sources. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum, Joint Operating Agreement and Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by 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. 3K DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstro4 0 RE: SKCRWA Joint Operating Agreement As you are aware, the City is a member of the South King County Regional Water Association. Besides ourselves, its present membership includes Covington Water District, Water District #111, City of Auburn and City of Black Diamond. The Regional Water Association developed the Coordinated Water System Plan for South King County. The attached Joint Operating Agreement establishes a cooperative framework for the development of future water supply sources. This agreement is particularly noteworthy because of Auburn's participation therein. Auburn sits upon an aquifer that has an estimated sustained production capacity of 15 - 30 million gallons (MGD) per day and a peaking capacity of 40 - 75 MGD. In the early 1980's, we secured and confirmed a high yield production well in the Auburn area. At the time however, Auburn made much to do over our actions. As such, this agreement represents a significant step forward and the Public Works Department recommends executing same. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT January 1995 WH[ REAS, an adequate and safe water supply for South King County Regional Water Association (SKCRWA) is vital to both existing citizens and implementing the long-term comprehensive plans of SKCRWA; and WHEREAS, the State and SKCRWA prepared a Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) for South King County; and WFIEREAS, projects that provide for the joint use and operation of supply, transmission, storage, treatment, and pumping facilities to minimize cost, provide for improved water quality, protect the environment, provide for emergency needs, and maximize the best use of the resource is in the best interest of the citizens of the region; WiffiREAS, the current and near -term water needs of the local governments and SKCRWA require steps to establish a cooperative subregional water supply system; and WHEREAS, the SKCRWA is committed to cooperate toward regional solutions for long range water supply needs. NOW THEREFORE, the SKCRWA members as the initial developers of this Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), agree as follows: 1. GENERAL A. The Members acknowledge the requirement to incorporate land use planning as defined by the Growth Management Act with water supply planning; and B. The Members recognize the benefits of developing a subregional water supply system that will allow the optimum use of surface and groundwater to better manage and protect the area's water resources; and C. The Members will hold a joint meeting at least annually about September 30th to review the status of this JOA and any Amendments as well as other problems of mutual concern. The specific date, time, and location of the meeting will be set by mutual agreement. January 13, 1995 1- 43960 joa doo 2. INTENT A. The general intent of the Members is to cooperatively provide the additional facilities needed to develop a South King County Subregional Water Supply System (Subregional System). The Members may choose by Interlocal Agreement to produce additional water and distribute it within the Subregional System, with or without change to their retail service area B. The JOA provides a framework for joint development of specific projects that may include two or more of the Participants. Each facility project and/or interne shall be developed under a separate Interlocal Agreement (IA) consistent with this JOA subject to approval by appropriate affected city council and/or water district boards. The specific intent of this JOA is to make provisions for a standardized method to create or expand the Subregional System to meet the public water supply needs for both emergency and long-term use, and to establish a basis for agreement between the Participants for financing, ownership, construction, and operation of projects required for the Subregional System. These projects may include common facilities with other Agencies outside the SKCRWA. It is further the specific intent of this JOA to preserve existing water rights and protect the established or planned interest and needs of each Participant with respect to sources of water. Exhibit A is a suggested content of what should be included in each Interlocal Agreement. C. It is the desire of the Members that this JOA be incorporated into the South King County CWSP at the next update. D. The term "Participant" as used in this JOA shall mean all the signatories of an IA consistent with and implemented subsequent to this JOA- E. The term "members" as used in this JOA shall mean all the members of the . SKCRWA whether they have signed this JOA or not. 3. SUBREGIONAL SUPPLY SYSTEM AND SERVICE AREA A "Subregional System" shall mean: (a) that portion of the Participants' sources, interties, transmission, and storage systems required to supply water to the service area of the Participants or new facilities as defined by a separate IA. January 13, 1995 .2- 43%0joadoc (b) those designated capacities within a Participant system as specifically defined in the appropriate IA. B. "Service Area of the Subregional System" shall mean the Participants' Designated Water Service Areas identified in the CWSP as shown on Exhibit B or as approved by amendments to the CWSP or the Participants' Comprehensive Water Plan. C. "Facility Ownership". Ownership of the physical facilities that exist on the date of this JOA shall remain with the individual Participants. Unless otherwise agreed to within a specific IA, ownership and operational responsibilities of new facilities shall be based generally on location in designated service areas, with capacity rights defined by appropriate IA. 4. WATER SUPPLY - CAPACITY RIGHTS A. Capacity Riis - Each Participant may purchase capacity in planned improvements to the Subregional System. Any changes in these capacity rights shall be recognized by an IA, approved by the appropriate affected city councils and/or water district boards. B. Additional JOA Participants - Other agencies may purchase capacity rights in the Subregional System with consent of the SKCRWA. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If other agencies become a JOA Participant in future projects, past costs recognized by the JOA including, but not limited to cost associated with development of this JOA, Water Rights, negotiations, and any Feasibility Studies will be assessed to the new agency.. C. Wholesaling Water - The Participants may wholesale water through lease or otherwise, delivered through the Subregional System to areas outside of Participant's respective Service Area, so long as the other Participants' capacity rights are not negatively impacted. Members of the SKCRWA shall have right of first refusal for excess capacity which would be sold to non-members. D. Conservation and Curtailment. All Participants will develop and implement a conservation plan that is consistent with State guidelines and will incorporate guidance to ensure that their program is compatible with the Conservation Plan implemented by the source of supply agency. In addition, if a source of supply agency develops and implements a curtailment plan all purchasers shall develop and implement a compatible curtailment plan. E. Quality - An objective of the Members is to maintain the quality of the water in the Subregional System at or above the quality required by the State drinking water standards. The purchasing Participant will be responsible for ensuring water quality blending analyses and other water quality issues are resolved to their own January 13,1995 i- 43960. doc satisfaction. The Participants will meet periodically to ensure that water quality and operational issues are addressed, and that needed information is exchanged in a timely fashion. The written results of these meetings will be circulated in a timely manner to all members and participants and reviewed at the annual meeting. F. Additional Facilities - Projected needs will be identified by the Participants based on the Participant's designated service areas. As five or more years may be needed to bring major new source capacity capabilities on line, five-year and ten-year forecasts are required, and must be updated whenever a Participant becomes aware of any significant change in their forecast demand. These will be discussed jointly as they arise, and reviewed at the annual meeting. G. Financing - Each Project IA will include pertinent details of financing for that project. Financial participation in existing and additional facilities will be based on each Participant's projected need for each facility, as designated capacity rights. H. Cost of Service Charge - The Members and Participants will establish wholesale water sales charges for both emergency and long-term supply that include: (1) capital cost, (2) fixed operating cost, and (3) a variable operating cost based on quantity of water delivered based on actual costs of providing the service. Fixed and variable operating and maintenance costs payments will be made monthly per meter and use rates. Projected annual rate adjustments and documentation shall be provided at the annual meeting. Any rate increase will be effective beginning January 1, of the following year. (1) The Rates and Charges for the capital, operation, and maintenance of the system shall be based on the following: (a) Capital Cost - Those construction related costs incurred for Capacity Rights. Capital Costs for facilities contracted solely for a specific project (described in an IA) are allocated based on designated capacity to be purchased. Capital costs shall include the debt service for each Participant. Such debt service shall be defined as the actual debt service on debt issued for the Participant's proportionate share of capacity rights, or if no debt is issued for the Participant's costs by the financing Participant, the amortized value at the interest rate of the most recent revenue bond issued by the financing Participant over 20 years. However, should all capital costs be paid in full by any Participant purchasing capacity rights prior to the time of the financing Participant incurring the costs, no interest charges shall be assigned to the Participant purchasing capacity rights. January 13,1995 -4- 43960:joa doc Capital Costs associated with a supplying Participant's construction of their internal water system facilities may be included in the fixed and variable operating costs as appropriate, using cost of service principles, in the same manner as those costs are included in the supplying Participant's customer rate base. (b) Fixed Operating Cost - The cost of labor, supervision, supplies, utilities, services, taxes, insurance, and all other costs required to operate and maintain the system other than those items included under Variable Operating Cost. The operating cost will include an allocation for renewal and replacement. (c) Variable Operating Cost - Those costs directly proportionate to the volume of water produced, including chemicals, electric power, and other costs required to meet customer and system needs not included in (a) and (b) above. (2) Accounting Subregional System accounting shall be documented in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices acceptable to the Participants. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE. LEGAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS A- Each Participant shall designate in writing their representative responsible for coordination and implementation of the JOA and the subsequent Us. The designated individuals will be the primary, contact for all project approvals and communication and shall prepare and publish a schedule and plan to facilitate the planning, design and day-by-day operation of facilities associated with the JOA. An Annual Meeting of the Members and Participants shall be held to review past activity and to propose efforts that may lead to further Amendments to this JOA- B. This JOA shall remain in full force unless terminated by mutual agreement. Any Member may request Amendment to this JOA at any time with approval subject to SKCRWA Bylaws. January 13.1995 -5- 43960:joa.doc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the SKCRWA members hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their proper Officers on the day of 199_ By: Title: City of Auburn Attest: Approved As To Form: Bv: Title: City of Black Diamond Attest: In Approved As To Form: Bv: Title: Covington Water District Attest: Approved As To Form: M January 13, 1995 -6- 43960:jotdoe By: Title: City of Kent Attest: 0 Approved As To Form: By: Title: King County Water District #111 Attest: Approved As To Form: By: By: Title: Date: Attest: By: Approved As To Form: Un January 13. 1995 7- 43960:joa.doo By: Title: Date: Attest: im- Approved As To Form: By:_ Title: Date: Attest: Approved As To Form: LO-A �_ 43960:joadoc January 13, 1993 SOUTH KING COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ASSOCIATION JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT CHECKLIST FOR ]NTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS Project Title 2. General ❑ List of Utilities to be Parties to the Interlocal Agreement (IA) and approval of appropriate city councils and/or water district boards. ❑ Consistency with Joint Operating Agreement (JOA). ❑ Description of need for project. ❑ Listing of potential Wholesale customers for water per Section 4.0 of the JOA. ❑ Recognition of assessment of costs associated with development of JOA per Section 43 of the JOA. ❑ Recognition South King County Regional Water Association (SKCRWA) members have right of first refusal on excess capacity per Section 4.0 of the JOA. ❑ Recognition that capacity and water rights are available to meet the needs of the IA. 3. Description of the Project Inclusion of a drawing (or description) which identifies all the facilities to be considered within the IA. Included within the description should be all jointly and solely owned facilities that are to be operated or paid for by a Party to the IA. The information within the description should include the following: ❑ Long-term ownership of the facility ❑ Party responsible for long-term maintenance of the facility ❑ Party responsible for payment for design and construction for the facility 4. Project Costs, Financing, and Capacity Rights ❑ Description of all project costs and the allocation to each Party. ❑ Definition of Capacity rights for all facilities. January 13,I995 -1- 43960:ExhibA.doc ❑ Definition of cost sharing for long-term maintenance for each facility. ❑ Definition of methods of reimbursement for monies expended (if required). ❑ Description of any applicable latecomer fees or hook-up charges. ❑ Description of requirements for record keeping and monitoring of costs. ❑ Description of manner to finance project and to pay for purchased water including initial costs and method to adjust costs over time. 5. Project Design and Construction Management ❑ Definition of overall project management responsibilities. ❑ Definition of design and construction management responsibilities for individual facilities. ❑ Description of basic periodic meeting schedule for project review. 6. Conditions of Service ❑ Limitations to source sharing or delivery of water (if any). ❑ Design Criteria for full project. ❑ Minimum and maximum flow rates and pressures. ❑ Items specifically excluded from the project. 7. Term of Duration of the Agreement Discussion of the length of time the agreement is in effect as well as the method to terminate the agreement and succeeding agencies' obligations. 8. Amendments Methods by which the agreement could be amended. 9. Hold harmless, liability language, etc. January 13, 1995 -2- 43960:"bA.dw regarding access to their facilities or conduits. However, he said that if the City desires these conduits, and it is done in a fashion that it does not interfere with Metro's construction plans, particularly the schedule, MCI will install this facility for the city at cost plus 10%. Clark asked Wickstrom for background in terms of what the City has done with other utilities in relationship to this sort of situation. Wickstrom stated that primarily, thru a working relationship, we have the utility companies install conduits; we furnish the conduits and they install it as part of their work or, they would do the whole thing. Clark noted that we do have a sincere interest in getting that other conduit laid and if you are going to open the streets, it makes sense to lay it while you are doing this. Hagood stated that we would have a problem if we do that for the City free of charge. He referenced state statutes with regards to preferential treatment; that puts MCI in bad form with other entities that we are in negotiations with. Committee unanimously made the recommendation to revise the franchise consistent with the discussions of today's meeting subject to the approval of MCI and the City Attorney's office for presentation with those revisions at the next Council meeting and to be presented for approval. Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Project Wickstrom stated that in trying to get the Tacoma Pipeline built, they were running out of money in terms of the bonds etc., and this will delay their project so they have asked participants which are, WD #111, Federal Way Water & Sewer, Covington Water and Kent to all share in the design cost, our cost being $791,000 for the design of the pipeline. He said as noted in their letter to us, there are risks involved and it could be a lost cost because of the problems with different agencies involved, including the Muckleshoot Tribe Authority He said that this project is extremely important to us to meet our long term water needs and this is our next source. Because of the water right moratorium at D.O.E. essentially the impoundment would be our only source which has another long lead time due the environmental issues associated with it. He stated that we need to move on this project; we have the money and it is one of our future options available. Committee unanimously recommended that upon concurrence of the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, authorize the Mayor to execute a memorandum of Understanding with Tacoma relating to funding Kent's share of the design work associated with Tacoma;'s Second Supply Pipeline project. E> Regional Water Association Joint Qperating Agreement �Y Wickstrom stated that this agreement sets the tone of cooperation for future supply. This 3 is important to us because Auburn is sitting on a major aquifer - it could supply all our needs and theirs in the future. He said that Auburn's participation in this agreement sets the tone that they are willing to cooperate and that's why we should sign the agreement. It is primarily instigated because WD 111 and Covington need water now and Auburn is willing to share with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to execute the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens Wickstrom explained that this is a latecomer agreement for sewer that was extended in the vicinity of Kent Kangley and 132nd near the Meridian Shopping Center. This agreement would enable the developer to recoup some of his costs incurred in constructing the main. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to prepare and the Public Works Director sign a Latecomer Agreement for the sanitary sewer improvements of Stillwater Greens. Up Front St Improvements vs No Protest LID Covenants No action was taken on this item at this time - Committee stated that Council is very concerned about the whole LID issue. Judy Woods recommended that a workshop be set to discuss the LID procedure. Wickstrom explained that this item was presented at the last Committee meeting and it was decided at that time to take it to Council retreat; nothing was discussed at the retreat. Wickstrom noted that he brought it back to this Committee to get some direction. Wickstrom explained that he has contacted surrounding cities and the County and most of them have up -front improvements; some have means of deferral and there are exemptions for single family residences and short plats. Wickstrom suggested bringing that information back to Committee. Committee concurred that a workshop would be beneficial. Green River Levee Improvements Wickstrom stated that we have completed this contract; it is before the Committee because it is over 10% of the bid amount however it is not a funding problem. He stated that there was alot of bad ground material and we had to import more material than was anticipated. 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LATECOMER AGREEMENT - STILLWATER GREENS 2 SUMMARY STATEMENT: The owner/developer of Stillwater Greens subdivision has completed a sewer extension along 128th Ave. SE between SE 272nd St. & SE 264th St., and has requested that the City implement a Latecomer Agreement for future connections onto the sewer main in order to recover a portion of the costs incurred which directly benefit other properties. be atIt-b-4 to re u1 h°nzafi0" sign a Latecomer Agreement of Stillwater Greens) ask-' kc committeel re and he Public Works Director +� or the sanitary sewer improvements 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, vicinity map and Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. 6. 7. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS' CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember, DISCUSSION: ACTION: econds Council Agenda Item No. 3L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstromw RE: Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens Sanitary Sewer Extension The owner/developer of the above mentioned residential subdivision completed a sewer extension along 128th Ave SE between SE 272nd St & SE 264th St. He has requested that the City implement a Latecomer Agreement for future connections into the sewer main in order to recover a portion of the costs incurred which directly benefit other properties. The latecomer charge is divided into two parts; 1) a direct charge for connecting to the main and, 2) a service area charge for oversizing the main. The direct charge for connection is distributed over thirty parcels that are adjacent to the sewer main and it is estimated that the latecomer fee would be $0.3212 per square foot. The only exception to this would be those parcels that are in the plat of Meridian Meadows which are to be assessed per lot in an amount of $3,688.73 each. Lots 23 and 24 of the same subdivision are double size lots therefore, their latecomer charge will be double. The service area charge would assess all parcels north of SE 268th St (see attached map) due to the up -sizing of the sewer system. An estimated charge of $0.00473 per square foot will be assessed to all properties within the area designated on the attached map. The plats of Stillwater Greens, Stillwater and Meridian Meadows are also included in the service area but are assessed per lot. Charges range from approximately $39.00 to $58.00 per lot. Several owners within these sub -divisions have double sized lots and therefore the corresponding area charge will also be double. It should be noted that the City has already accepted the bill of sale and warranty agreements for the subject sewer system. ACTION: Authorize staff to prepare and for the Public Works Director to sign a Latecomer Agreement for the sanitary sewer improvements of Stillwater Greens OVERALL SEWER SERVICE AREA UPSIZED SEWER SERVICE AREA DIRECT SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION d STILLWATER GREENS SANITARY SEWER OFF —SITE LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT is important to us because Auburn is sitting on a major aquifer - it could supply all our needs and theirs in the future. He said that Auburn's participation in this agreement sets the tone that they are willing to cooperate and that's why we should sign the agreement. It is primarily instigated because WD 111 and Covington need water now and Auburn is willing to share with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to execute the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens Wickstrom explained that this is a latecomer agreement for sewer that was extended in the vicinity of Kent Kangley and 132nd near the Meridian Shopping Center. This agreement would enable the developer to recoup some of his costs incurred in constructing the main. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to prepare and the Public Works Director sign a Latecomer Agreement for the sanitary sewer improvements of Stillwater Greens. Up Front St Improvements vs No Protest LID Covenants No action was taken on this item at this time - Committee stated that Council is very concerned about the whole LID issue. Judy Woods recommended that a workshop be set to discuss the LID procedure. Wickstrom explained that this item was presented at the last Committee meeting and it was decided at that time to take it to Council retreat; nothing was discussed at the retreat. Wickstrom noted that he brought it back to this Committee to get some direction. Wickstrom explained that he has contacted surrounding cities and the County and most of them have up -front improvements; some have means of deferral and there are exemptions for single family residences and short plats. Wickstrom suggested bringing that information back to Committee. Committee concurred that a workshop would be beneficial. Green River Levee Improvements Wickstrom stated that we have completed this contract; it is before the Committee because it is over 10% of the bid amount however it is not a funding problem. He stated that there was alot of bad ground material and we had to import more material than was anticipated. 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS 2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, uthori ion to accept as complete the contract with Lloyd Ent rises, Inc. for the Green River Levee Improvemen project and release of retainage after State releases. The original contract was $272,010.311"dZhe final construction cost was $316,427.89, 'fhe overage beirrfF due to the necessity of over excavating unsuitable material at the Signature Pointe Apartments and replaciyit with upgraded material. Adequate funds exist within the project fund to cover this overage. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, vicinity map and Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by Jim Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. C: 7. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee �1 FROM: Don Wickstromw RE: Green River Levee Improvements This project consisted of levee improvements along the Green River which included concrete asphalt pavement, chain link fencing, an adjustment of a pedestrian bridge ramp, retention pond excavation and other miscellaneous improvements. The contract was awarded to Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. for the bid amount of $272,010.31. The final construction cost was $316,427.89. This contract exceeded the bid amount due to the necessity of over -excavating unsuitable material at the Signature Point Apartments and replacing it with upgraded material. Also, a block wall adjacent to the road at Signature Point was needed in order to provide enough room for construction of the pedestrian trail. Adequate funds exist within the project fund to cover this overage. ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. o� 4]R0 y 3 43RD AV€ ��yN3N f 45TN REir" �N AVf RD OVOa a co N q f 45TH AVL f H 45TH PL 3 AVE 3 N 3W41 J �yAM Z 4 pfoa O FRAGER Q . N W ON ti w••.... ... :i .. 07 RU33ELL ROAD f) (63RD AVE o p O \G ::. D O ; f �T g m 0 LA z rn moz ' r-wm zm a ^ '"< o Zi C G N 94TH T a = 64TH AVE S _ FRAQER ROAD N C 1 _ I � N C WA3HI N. m N 3 WASHINGTOH AVE ,k N P10N AVE * r F ovoa H LINCOLN A t1ADEH AVE 3OH AVE `: i Y; IF HIVL 3 GTH ~ S STH AVE r_ AVE :. i 9 g STN 7,), c� AVE C > 3 3TH AVE m '—' GREEN RIVER LEVEE CA ® r- 4TH��• AVE M ' �s -i is important to us because Auburn is sitting on a major aquifer - it could supply all our needs and theirs in the future. He said that Auburn's participation in this agreement sets the tone that they are willing to cooperate and that's why we should sign the agreement. It is primarily instigated because WD 111 and Covington need water now and Auburn is willing to share with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to execute the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens Wickstrom explained that this is a latecomer agreement for sewer that was extended in the vicinity of Kent Kangley and 132nd near the Meridian Shopping Center. This agreement would enable the developer to recoup some of his costs incurred in constructing the main. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to prepare and the Public Works Director sign a Latecomer Agreement for the sanitary sewer improvements of Stillwater Greens. Up Front St Improvements vs No Protest LID Covenants No action was taken on this item at this time - Committee stated that Council is very concerned about the whole LID issue. Judy Woods recommended that a workshop be set to discuss the LID procedure. Wickstrom explained that this item was presented at the last Committee meeting and it was decided at that time to take it to Council retreat; nothing was discussed at the retreat. Wickstrom noted that he brought it back to this Committee to get some direction. Wickstrom explained that he has contacted surrounding cities and the County and most of them have up -front improvements; some have means of deferral and there are exemptions for single family residences and short plats. Wickstrom suggested bringing that information back to Committee. Committee concurred that a workshop would be beneficial. 0 Green River Levee Improvements Wickstrom stated that we have completed this contract; it is before the Committee because it is over 10% of the bid amount however it is not a funding problem. He stated that there was alot of bad ground material and we had to import more material than was anticipated. 4 Committee unanimously recommended that this project be accepted as complete. Surplus Vehicles Wickstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles that we are proposing to surplus at the March auction and we need authorization to do so. In response to Tim Clark, Jack Spencer explained that the Parks Dept uses their vehicles in the parks and they have alot of engine hours even though the speedometer does not reflect that. Jack stated that these vehicles are to a point where, rather than spending a lot of money on these, it would be better to surplus them. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the state auction on March 11th. Meeting adjourned: 5:40 P.M. 5 //d� Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MCI METRO FRANCHISE ORDINANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to defer action on the MCI Metro franchise ordinance, as approved by the Public Works Committee on February 13, 1995. The City Attorney's Office was unable to finalize negotiations on the agreements—r===_'.,- it would be appropriate to defer action until the City Attorney's Office and the Public Works Committee agree to final language. 3. EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 9 7. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3N Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: JULIE'S ADDITION FINAL PLAT FSU-94-7 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: -This - meating Wj1! eensider Julie's Addition Final Plat FEU- �4 .— -r' is located between 114th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E. on S.E. 264th Place in the recently annexed Ramstead/East Hill annexation area. The plat is 4.561 acres in size. The preliminary plat was approved by King County (File No. S89PO110) and upon annexation to the City, the final plat came under Kent's jurisdiction 3. EXHIBITS: Staff memo; map; Office of division Examiner (Building and Land No. S89PO110) Findings; and King Coun 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, C?l 5. R 7. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Zoning and elopment File Ordinance No. ssion, etc.) Sub- 9950 NO ✓ YES �f Councilmember move, C em er Zsecon s to approve Julie's Addition Final Plat No. FSU-94-7 with con- ditions according to King County Ordinance No. 9950 and File No. S89PO110, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. . W C) c> &S S e C-t, n Je a," ci i DISCUSSION: ACTION• rot, Council Agenda Item No. 4A CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM February 15, 1995 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: JULIE'S ADDITION FINAL PLAT #FSU-94-7 On May 20, 1991, the King County Council approved the Julie's Addition preliminary Subdivision (King County Building and Land Development File No. S89P0l10), a 17-lot single family residential plat. The plat is located between 114th Avenue S.E. and 166th Avenue S.E. on S.E. 264th Street and contains 4.561 acres. The address of the property is 26408 114th Avenue S.E. Now that the plat is located in Kent, it requires final plat approval by the Kent City Council. Consequently, an application for final plat approval was filed by Bargausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. on January 12, 1995. Pursuant to Section 12.04.400 of the Kent Subdivision Code, a meeting of City staff was held on December 21, 1994 to review the Julie's Addition final plat. At this meeting it was the decision of City staff that the proposed final plat was consistent with the requirements of the Kent City Code (Subdivision Code) Section 12.04.400 (A) (1) and (2) relative to overall density of the subdivision and the provision of adequate subdivision improvements. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Julie's Addition final plat No. FSU-94-7 according to the conditions referenced in Building and Land Development File No. S89P0110 and King County Ordinance No. 9950. JPH/mp:c:fsu947fp.cc cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager m p L------------DO ` I \ J ------------- 00 V s DnNane y19[L -'(038) .S9 Z91 ry .4S"6Zf 3 •9l.l L.LO N - — - — - — p p I o h 1Yld SIHi j0 oNloao03a i o S co - N I NOdO S3SOddhd AVMOVOa 803 1N3N j0 A11O 3H1 01 031VOI030 W)o N 4b .096Zf M „9L.t IJO S ---------T- 9 £L \ ,sL IN N, I WO O^ J Z II" I oo O L z I f Z i �m sy 61-1 lob polz, I \ LL J wOV I /7 o botl ` ° \ rr r �° 40 Im --------J-- Low o M _Ib,LL.lO s r m o \ U Tz I° 3S �d 439LL J w I Or�O'L��p Q - 0 - I III¢ I N ��y� m `° I nr Q \ cy� _ _ < n m W U� � I � bZ � !� I ,^ ILA . iv .0696 ((ffjj' h V ~ N UtfJ I v v V ,H M •it.LIAO S� wLU ,NO I o'rNi o,QV a' I1 (�^o nmv ,ri O II I Q I L O .J M l4.L L A O S � w `r � ''�dp\ 9Z -1 I � Q '1 I. y a; �m ^ B �f'Bb� 3�O•i\\ Lli ^ I---L--- LL -- Q ~ ~-- J rA o , En N m tp O /ry Ol 3 N NFA 1�—-- .l6'O6 u nl J-v .fS'O6— � a� � �a ® 0 W M ,tl,.,tiJo S o+ M Isr. L LLO S_ �Zdso�s ,z cq HNV nto ��eT -@'-' -_ ,n m i,n .66'O6 O1 v H .LS'O6 i° f'il <Or- N Zw I b M ,Ib,LL.Lo S vl •SS'O6 m >i,n M .L 4,L L.tO S 3 ,It I-t0 N o f Z,, a �= 7 I W Vf I Ir L-KfV O m Ol! 2�W ® ® w F- V- w F m O K 2 CS I W L J'p Owe a N o T iv oo N r03w 6 Zw vloZrr -A 9 Q p uj O T P s 0 <�wW o YO z EE I I'- ^�aOf m T N KO2!w 0 U DOW \ I .LO'I6,fS06 vl allo� po Woc� ^------J W M ,Ib./l.to S �- .99'06 �, �o i� _ 3S Id 44VLL Z M"„tb,L L.LO S w M „Lb.LLIO S r,U N J N 11 _n � W ZQ2 w2' 1 n ml to O O N �Oiw O �C1Z ,O N p < 7 W w p / 20' a iv o 'a n n e o Sl ��' ( I Jnlnac W N In n a .b4 S6 .50 98 m .45 06 6\ a o �- M .l b,L l.lO S 20, M .H1.1L.io S 3 .l4,L L.LO N oa �^ Z, In 3 Ir_' aa, Iw3 "�IgoTm��a NV ,ol^ i vii mo N v o,c ornWmrn 3 �m ` eZrnpN HI V/n `.m Iv,n I ZN��n J ^ z l .ZO LS z ILI- ,9 \ -I- - V3aV N IV I 0 AVM I� N \ n 3 „bS.S4.00 N O on a0 m lit L_ w ,9£'9ft 3 .PS.96.00 N - - -- J O L s anNAnv 4LVu -------� ----- w� ,n0000 \ _-- 'r—_ _-----T a—_-------- W COC Q F— a 1-M XWO �SZ of Qo I r I W - - - - - - - - - - <0 > �zw I N > April 24, 1991 AN-11 RECEIVED viol 3 01994 GIT� OFEp AT(MENj OFFICE OF T E ZONING COUNT Yt,DWASIDfINGTU:�ON EXAMINER ptpNN1NO O AMENDED REPORT AND RECOM14ENDATIUN To THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. S89P0110 Proposed ordinance No. 90-496 Proposed Plat of JULIE'S ADDITION Generally between 114th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E., and generally between S.E. 264th- Street and S.E. 265th Street (if both roads were extended) SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Division's Preliminary: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Division's Final: .Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) PRELIMINARY REPORT: The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report on Item.No. S89P0110 was received by the Examiner on December 4, 1990. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's Report, examining available information on file with the application and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. S89P0110 was opened by the Examiner at 1s35 p.m., December 18, 1990, in Room No. 1, Buildiny and Land Development Division, 3600 136th Place S.E., Suite A-, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 3:50 p.m. ThA hearing was reopened at 9:15 a.m., January 24, 1991, in Room No. 2, Building and Land Development Division, and closed at 10:10 a.m. The hearing was reopened at 9:15 a.m., April 9, 1991, and continued adjourned at 10:00 a.m., having been administratively until April 19, 1991- The hearing was closed on April 19, 1991. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FkO'DINGS CONCLUSIONS i RECOMMENDATION: Raving reviewed the record In this matter, the Examinee now makes and enters the following: i ti ti ►E Julie's Addition Amended Report S89P0110 Page 2 P INDINGS: 1. General Information: STR: 19-22-5 Location: Generallybetween een 114th Avenue S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E., and generally between S.E. 264th Street and S.E. 265th Street Zoning: (if both roads were extended) Acreage: SR Number of Lots: 4.56 19 Typical Lot Size: Ranges from 5,OU0 to 1U,000 Proposed Use: square feet Detached single-family • - Sewage Disposal: residences Water Su City of Kent Fire District: City of Kent -` School District: t37 - Kent 1415 - Kent 2• Allied Commercial Group (hereinafter, the 'applicant-) proposes to subdivide 4.56 acres into 19 single-family residential building lots.. WLth lot sizes ranging froin 5,000 to 13,000 square feet„ the Proposed plat incorporates'lot size averaging provisions contained in KCC 21.08.080. "3• An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. On June 12, 1990, the Building and Land Development Division (hereinafter, the 'Division') issued a Mitigated Threshold Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) requiring eight mitigating measures. That determination was timely appealed by the East Hill Environmental Citizens Alliance. On December 14, 1990, the Examiner issued a Decision on an Appeal from Threshold Determination which affirmed the Division's MDNS and added three additional Mitigating measures. The eleven total mitigating measures are set forth as Condition No. 25 Of -final plat approval on pages 13, 14, and 15 of this Report, below. The final MDNS condition requires that•roadways shall be relocated outside wetland buffers.- , a Interpretation of this condition excludesoS.E. 265th Street and 116th Avenue S.E. from this t. Instead, it is intended to a requirement. Street''to be developed by the py the internal plat • Pplicant. 4' The Building and Land Development Division recommends approval of the proposed plat, subject to 28 conditions of 18p 1990final plat approval. The Division modifies Examiner to the Zoning Preliminary Report its December Exa Examiner (Exhibit No. 1) as follows: and Subdivision A. Trans23Ortation Anal sis, Section N.1, age 7• This analysis addresses transportation routes, NOT 'rates' as erroneously stated in the first sentence of this Portion of the Division's Preliminary Report. 'B• Density, Sectio frn N 2 Page 7• Delete this subsection om the Division's Preliminary Report. k Design. Section N 3 oage_7• Delete subparagraph •a• (regarding density limitation the Division's Preliminary ) from this subsection of Report. ;_ti Julie's Addition Amended Report S89P0110 Page 3 D. Right -of -Hay Dedication 114th and 116th Avenues S L. Recommended Condition No. 20, on page 13 of the Division's Preliminary Report is deleted because it is redundant. The same requirements are addressed in Recommended Condition Nos. 14 and 17. E. Density Calculations. Recummended Condition No. 23 is amended to require Elie provision of sufficient flat, dry, usable open space in preparing density calculations only 'if applicable.• F. SEPA Requirements. As noted in Finding No. 3, above, the Division adds the Examiner's December 14, 1990 three additional mitigating measures to the SEPA conditions of plat approval. See Condition No. 29 i through k, below. . G. Cul de Sac Turnaround Bulb. The Division recommends adding an additional condition which authorizes the internal cul de sac turnaround bulb to be located 'within the 15-foot building setback line (SSBL) but not within the NGPE buffer area.' Additionally, the Division recommends an additional condition which requires a 50-fuot turnaround bulb right-of-way radius, rather than the 42-foot radius Proposed -by the applicant. 5. The applicant accepts the Division's recommendations, with the following exceptions:. r;a A. Cul de Sac Turnaround Bulb Location and Size. The applicant expresses concern that the Division's recommendation to move the cul de sac turnaround bulb right-of-way from the wetland buffer area may unnecessarily constrain the proposed Tract 'Be storm control facility. Additionally, the applicant argues that the required turnaround bulb improvements can be located within the proposed 42-foot radius. • B• School Enrollment Impact Mitigation. SEPA mitigating measure no. 8, entered as Recommended Condition No. 26.h, below, would require the applicant to _ pay any development.fees adopted by King County Council through ordinance prior to final plat approval. The applicant did not appeal this MDNS condition when first Issued on June 12, 1990- The applicant argues that this recommended conditiun of final plat approval is not enforceable. See also Finding No. 7, below, regarding school enrollment impacts. C. Wetland Enhancement Plan. The Examiner's December 14, 1990 SEPA appeal decision requires a wetland enhancement plan. See Recommended Condition No. 26, below. The applicant questions the meaning of this enhancement plan requirement because the existing •natural growth' to be affected is pasture grass. The Division responds that the purpose of the wetland enhancement is to assure that there wetland is no net loss of. functions and values upon project completion. Although this wetland does not provide noteworthy habitat, it does provide good water quality g-ka treatment. In this case, therefore, the Division 3, con•tends that enhancement requires additional trees, shrubs, and ground covers which are approved by a wetland biologist for the purpose of providing a higher level of water quality treatment. Plantings will, iThese ncidentally, provide improved wildlife habitat. Julie's Addition Amended Report S09P0110 Page 4 D. Wetland Protection Standards. The applicant expresses concern regarding the administration of higher wetland protection standards than have been applied to neighboring subdivisions, such as Llndental and Lindental Meadows (File Nos. 487-21 and 489-24). The .Division cites as basis for higher wetland protection standards the following: a) Adoption of Ordinance 9044, establishing a high priority for Soos/Soosette Creek Basin protection; b) The determination that a signficant environmental impact would result without the retention/detention and wetland protection controls required here; and c) King County Comprehensive Plan policies which emphasize the importance of protecting wetlands, habitat, and stream corridors. Ordinance No. 9044 was adopted July 13, 1989, Tne Division received this application five months later, on November 29, 1989. 6. Wetland Value. The Soos Creek'Basin is one of three stream basins containing habitat capable of supporting historic salmon runs if protected from further degradation, and the fish produced in these streams is a significant contribution to the over-$19 million dollars annual commercial and recreational fishery of the Green River. The Green River Fishery is a major economic. resource for the Muckleshoot Indian tribe and is used as an 'indicator system* for the international treaty between the United States and Canada. Preamble, paragraph no. 3, Ordinance No. 904.4. The wetlands on the subject property are connected to the drainage system which supports the Soos Creek Basin and which affect water quality and quantity flowing in that basin. The 1985 Comprehensive Plan directs the County to prottct environmentally sensitive areas. The importance of wetlands and the County approach to protecting them are established by King County Comprehensive Plan Policies E-328 through E-332, which are incorporated herein by this reference. Additionally, water quality, drainage systems, and habitat are addressed in Policies E-311 through E-319, E-321, and E-325, which are also incorporated herein by reference. 7. School Enrollment Impacts. The subject property is located within the jurisdiction of the Kent School District, which urges King County -to deny the subdivision. Even after accommodating 51 of the District's excess enrollment in temporary facilities, the District will lack capacity for 3,053 to 5,443 students during the expected Julie's Addition buildout period, from 1992 through 1995, according to District analysis. The District recently passed a major site acquisition and facility construction bond issue which authorizes, in part, acquisition of a .site bank' --acquisition of additional sites for, future development. The District is actively seeking additional i0'ites,•for which it is funded, and concedes that capacity .RKoblems are principally facility -related rather than site -related. RCW 58.17.110 requires the King County Council -to determine if appropriate provisions are made fur, among Julie's Additioi. Amended Report S89P0110 Page 5 other .things, 'sites for schools and school grounds.- The Kent School District bases its recommendation to deny the subdivision on Senate Bill No. 2929 (the 'Growth Management Act') and Ordinance No. 9544, 1990 Subdivision Code Amendments. However, RCW 58.17.033(1) requires that a proposed subdivision of land shall be considered under the 'subdivision ordinance and zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time a fully -completed application is submitted to the appropriate County official. 8. Safe Student Walking Conditions. The proposed plat fronts, and obtains public street access from, 114th Avenue S.E., an eighteen- to twenty -foot wide paved neighborhood collector street with open ditch drainage on each side and no walkways, sidewalks or footpaths adjacent RCW 58.17.110 states in part: The . . . County legislative body shall inquire intu the use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision dedication. It shall determine if appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare for openspaces, drainageways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water Supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and acheol grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other plannlno features that assure safe walkin condlt.lons fur students who walk to and from school, and detecmine whether the public interest will be served by this subdivision dedication . . . . (Emphasis added.) RCW 57.17.110 further states that if the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the considerations cited above, then it shall be approved. If, however, the proposed plat does not make appropriate provisions or that the public use and interest will not be served, then the legislative body may disapprove tl:e plat. Immediately north from the Julie's Addition property, and also abutting the east right-of-way boundary of 114th Avenue S.E., the 'Meridian Greens, pnase II' development received zone reclassification approval in July, 1990. As a Condition of'the reclassification approval necessary to proceed with this project, the Meridian Greens, Phase II projec'i is required to, •provide urban frontage improvements along 114th Avenue S.E. pursuant to King County Road Standards.' This assures the provision of sidewalks northward from Julie's Addition to SR 516. Standard urban sidewalk Improvements presently exist on SR 516 west from 114th Avenue S.E. to Kent Meridian Senior High School. Immediately west from the subject property, the proposed Plat of 'Oak Bill' has been approved. This plat includes a pedestrian walkway from the western terminus of its internal cul de sac street northwesterly to the Kent Junior High School property. This pedestrian walkway thus provides direct safe walking access for junior high school students. It also provides an alternate safe walking �rpute through the junior high school property for wmstbound senior high school students. Elementary students from the•proposed plat will be bused to Scenic Hill Elementary School. The bus stops conveniently along 114th Avenue S.E., fronting the subject property. Julie's Addition Amended Report Sa9P0110 Page 6 9. Finding on pages Decision ad t d 10. op e Nos. 1 through 8 and Conclusion Nos.'l through 9 I through 6 of the Examiner's December 14, 1990 on an Appeal from Threshold Determination are and incorporated herein by this reference. Except as noted above, the facts, analysis and recommendation presented in the Division of Building and Land Development Preliminary Report dated Decemoer 17, 1990 (published December 4, 1990) are accurate and they are incorporated here by reference. A copy of the Division of Building and Land Development report will be attached to the copies of the examiner's report which are submitted to the King county Council. CONCLUSIONS• 1. The wetland enhancement plan requirement results from the SEPA threshold determination appeal. With that public hearing closed, and Findings and Conclusions subsequently entered, it is neither appropriate nor defensible at this time to retract or diminish the MDNS amendment required by the Examiner's December 14, 1990 decision. The wetland enhancement plan requirement, therefore, should remain in effect in its entirety. The SEPA appeal process provided ample opportunity to resolve differences of opinion regarding wetland boundaries and mitigation measures. 2. Conclusion No. 1 notwithstanding, it is nonetheless correct to conclude that the final SEPA mitigating measure, 'Roadways shall be relocated outside wetland buffers,' refers to the establishment of the new internal circulation street within the proposed plat of Julie's Addition, not to established public right-of-way alignments, such as S.E. 265th Street and 116th Avenue t S.E. Thus, if the final SEPA mitigating measure (Condition No. 26.K, below), has any meaning at all, it means keep the internal circulation street and its turnaround bulb out of the wetland buffer area. Regardless of whatever impact this requirement may have on the storm water detention/retention Tract 'B', compliance is necessary. Once again, the SEPA decision has been made and this Examiner has no authority to diminish it. Therefore, the cul de sac turnaround bulb must be moved as directed by the SEPA appeal decision. 3• The ri,ght-of-way required to accommodate a County standard turnaround bulb need not be resolved at this time. King •County -Road Standards provide specifications regarding -such matters. The King county Road Engineer is authorized to review street proposals and make appropriate adjustments when justified. Recommended Condition No..31, below, will permit this review. This conclusion shall not be construed by any party to either promote or Oppose any particular cul de sac radius in this case. 4. The Growth Management Act and the King County 1990 Subdivision Code Amendments do not apply in this case. The subdivision application predates the adoption of these new laws. RCW 58.17.033(1) prohibits the imposition of laws which were not adopted at the time of application. RCW 58.17.110 requires the County legislative body to %determine if appropriate provision is made for sites for isE,hools and school grounds. The hearing record contains AO facts or arguments to support a conclusion that there is not an adequate provlsion'of sites for schools and school grounds. It is clear, that school facilities are seriously overcrowded and that the overcrowding of these Julie's Additl, Amended Report S89p0110 Page 7 facilities will increase during the projected buildout period of this plat. However, the preponderance of the evidence support's the conclusion that there is no lack of sites for schools and school grounds. The proposed plat Is therefore consistent with the school criterion"stated in.RCW 58.17.110. 5. There is adequate provision of safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. See Finding No. 8, above. This conclusion is based upon the actual physical conditions existing and reasonably expected to exist along 114th Avenue S.E. in sufficient timely manner to serve the future Julie's Addition residents. See Finding No. e, regarding 'Meridian Greens, Phase II.' This conclusion is not based upon any procedural or legal argument offered oy the applicant. In particular, it must be noted that complete applications for the plats of Lindental Meadows and Oak Hills were each received before the July 12, 1989 effective date of the State Legislature's amendment to RCW 58.17.110, which requires a determination regarding safe walking conditions for students. Additionally, it must be observed that any grievance regarding 'lack of due process' in the review of this issue has been remedied oy the April 9, 1991 reopened public hearing. 6. Recommended Conditions Nos. 14 and 16 require improvement of 114th Avenue S.E. and 115th Avenue S.E. to King County standards. Recommended Condition No.20 requires dedication of appropriate right-of-way for those streets. • Therefore, Recommended Condition No. 20 is not redundant. 7. Based upon the whole record, and according substantial weight to the determination of environmental significance made by the Division of Building and Land Development and by the Examiner upon appeal, it is concluded that approval Of this subdivision as recommended below would not constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. All evidence of environmental Impact relating to the proposed action and seasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been included in the review and consideration of this action. 8. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the•yoals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 9. 'If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, -this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, water supply, and sanitary wastes; and it will serve the public use and interest. 10. The conditions recommended in the Division of Building and Land Development's Preliminary Report as amended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT preliminary approval to the proposed plat of JULIE'S ADDITION, Building and Land Development Division File No. S89P0eU , as -represented by Exhibit No. 6, subject to the follov?ng conditions of final plat approval: 1• compliance With all plattingIprovisions of Title 19 of the King County Code. �a Julie's Addition Amended Report S89po110 Page 0 2. All persons having an ownership Interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum requirements of the SR 7200 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger. Minor revisions may be considered. 4. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health Department. 5. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done In accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by ordinance No. 6041. 6. If an area -wide fire protection assessment is authorized by King County prior to final recording of this plat, this plat shall be subject to any assessment provided by Gnat ordinance. 7. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King county Fire Protection.Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire 'flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. 8. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with drainage provisions set forth -in King County Code 9.04 and current storm drainage requirements and guidelines as established by Surface Water Management. Compliance may - result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Code and requirements and shall apply to all plats. a. BALD approval of the drainage apd roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. A separate Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan for this project shall be submitted with the engineering plans. The plan shall show areas to be cleared (limits of the clearing) and provide a schedule of construction (construction sequence). c. Retention/detention (R/D) facilities shall oe located in tracts, unless located within improved King County rights -of -way. Maintenance access shall ne provided to all facilities. This will require a 15-foot access roadway to all manholes (R/D). Access must also oe provided for maintenance of the entire pond. d. Prior to recording of the final plat those portions of the retention/detention facility necessary to control the flows discharging from the site shall be constructed and operational. e. Oil/water separation facilities shall be provided at each point of permanent storm drainage release from the site so contaminants do not enter natural draina-ge features. In addition to standard King County oil/water separators, the applicant is required to provide blofiltration prior' to discharge of stormwater into any sensitive area (e.y., streams, wetlands, lakes, etc.). Such biofiltratlon includes 200 feet of broad, flat -bottom, grass -lined swales) or equivalent systems. Julie's Addition Amended Report S89po11U Page 9 f. Drainage outlets (stub -outs) shall be provided for each individual lot, except for those lots approved for infiltration by King County. Stub -out shall be shown on the engineering plans and shall conform to the following: 1) Each outlet shall be suitably located at the lowest appropriate elevation on the lot, so as to service all future roof downspouts and footing drains, driveways, yard drains, and any other surface or subsurface drains necessary to render the lots suitable for their intended use. Eacn outlet shall have free -flowing, positive drainage to an approved stormwater conveyance system or to an approved outfall location. Z) Outlets on each lot shall be located witn a • five -foot -high, 2' x 4' stake marked 'storm" or 'drain.' The stub -out shall extend aoove surface level, be visible and be secured to the stake. 7) Pipe material shall conform to underdrain specifications described in KCRS 7.U4 and, if non-metallic, the pipe shall contain wire or other acceptable detection feature. 4) Drainage easements are required for drainage �.z systems designed to 'convey flows through more than one lot. 5) The developer and/or contractor is responsible. for coordinating the location of all stub -out conveyance lines with respect to the utilities (e.g., power, gas, telephone, television). 6) All individual stub -outs shall be privately owned and maintained by the lot home owner. g. In some cases, on -site infiltration systems may be accepted for GV detention for the lots depending on suil conditions. To determine the suitability of the soil for infiltration systems, a soils report that includes Percolation tests and a soil log taken aG 6-foot minimum depth shall oe submitted by a Professional engineer, or soil specialist. This shall include, at a.minimum, information on soil texture, depth to seasonal high water and the occurrence of mottling and impervious layers. The report shall also address Potential down gradient impacts due to increased hydraulic loading on slopes and structures. Soil permeability data obtained from the design of the .septic system may be used for.the drywell retention system, provided data is submitted verifying that no impervious layer exists within 6 feet of the soil surface. If the soils report is approved, the Infiltration systems shall be installed at the time of the building permit. A note to this effect shall be placed on the map page of the recorded document. Tne drainage Plan and the recorded document shall indicate any lot approved for infiltration. h. ;ski Include with the drainage plan a downstream analysis. This analysis y, must extend for a minimum distance of 1/4 mile from the point of release of each flow discharging from the site. The analysis must address any existing problems with flooding, capacity, overtopping, scouring, sloughing, erosion or sedimentation of any drainage facility, whether Julie's Addition Amended Report S09P0110 Page 10 natural or man-made. Probable impacts due to construction of the project must also be addressed with respect to these same concerns. Where this analysis reveals more restrictive conditions,more stringent drainage controls may be required than would otherwise be necessary for a project of this type. These controls may include additional on -site rate and/or volume controls, off -site improvements, or a combination of both. Any off -site improvements will require the approval of all affected property owners. i. Current standard notes and ESC notes, as established by BALD engineering review, shal be placed on the engineered plans. J. The following notes shall be provided on the map page 1 of the recorded document. - "All building downspouts, footing drains and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the approved permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings I on file with the Department of Public Works. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit., All connections of the drains must ue constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval.• Those lots that are designed for •Individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed'at the time of the building - permit and shall comply with plans on file at the Public Works Record Center.' 9. Due to the erosion hazard and/or the need for protection of proposed drainfield areas, clearing shall be limited to those areas required for constructibn of roadways and utilities prior to recording. 10. A tributary of Soos Creek traverses the central portion of the proposed subdivision. The existing vegetation within this stream corridor functions as a natural biofilter'to maintain water quality. To maintain the natural function of this stream: the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Other than at the roadway crossing of S.E. 265th Street, no piping or realignment of the stream shall be allowed. b. The cross -culvert under S.E. 265th Street shall be sized to convey the 100-year design storm for the fully developed basin. C. The existing centerline of the stream shall be located by a licensed land surveyor and flagged in the field. d. The boundary of the 25-year floodplain of the drainage course shall be determined by the applicant's engineer and submitted to BALD for review and approval. e. The area within the boundary of the 25-year floodplain shall be designated as a separate tract and shown on ie the final engineering plans and recorded plat as a .7.% Native Growth Protection Easement .k NGPE tract shall be a minimum of 50 feet NinEwidtht,emeasured 25 feet on each side of,the centerline of the drainage course. Julie's Addition Amended Report S89pollo Page 11 E. Anadditional15-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL) shall be provided on both sides of the NGPE tract and shown on the final engineering plans and recorded plat. q. The stream shall bypass the retention/detention (R/D) facility. h. No retention/detention (R/D) facility shall be located within the stream corridor. L. All stormwater generated from roadway runoff shall Pass through 200 feet of biofiltration or equivalent prior to discharge into the stream. 11. An uninventoried wetland (Type 3) is located with the south central portion of the proposed subdivision. The n following conditions shall be satisfied with respect to this wetland: a. The boundary of the wetland shall be delineated by a qualified wetland biologist,.and surveyed by a professional land surveyor. The final delineation of the wetland boundary shall be subject to the review and approval of the King County wetland specialist. b. The wetland plus a 25-fo•ot buffer shall be designated as a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). C. The boundary of the 25=yeas floodplain shall be determined by the applicant's engineer. Any portion of the 25-year floodplain extending beyond the wetland buffer shall also be designated as NGPE. d. The NGPE shall be located within a separate tract and (� shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat. e. An additional 15-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL) L/ shall be delineated adjacent to the NGPE and shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat. 12. A portion of the wetland and stream will be fLlled to provide for the construction of S.E. 265th Street. To mitigate for the loss of wetland vegetation, the applicant's wetland biologist shall prepare a wetland enhancement plan for the remainder of the wetland and stream.- The enhancement plan shall satisfy the following conditions: a. The enhancement plan shall be included within the final engineering plans approved by King County. b. The plan shall be prepared by a biologist specializing in wetland enhancement. The plan shall be subject to the review of the BALD wetland specialist, prior to approval of the engineering plans by King county. C. The final plan shall note the name, address and phone number of the biologist retained to monitor the implementation of the enhancement plan. d.k The biologist shall conduct a three -fear monitoring program. The site will be evaluated at least twice a year to determine the survival and growth of planted vegetation. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to BALD for review and approval. Julie's Addition Amended Report Sa9P0110 Page 12 e. The applicant shall post a Wetland Enhancement Performance Bond. Upon approval of the final monitoring report or when the enhancement plan is deemed successful, whichever is later, King County shall release the bond. 13. The wetland may be utilized as a Retention/Detention (R/D) facility, if the following conditions are satisfied: a. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to work with the professional engineer in the design of the R/D facility. b. The design of the R/D facility shall include a permanent sediment trap or pond at all storm water outfalls Into the wetland. These sediment traps and ponds shall be located Outside of the wetland buffer and designated within separate tract. C. The final engineering plans and recorded plat snail l< cover the tract with a drainage easement. d. The final design shall be subject to the review and approval of the BALD wetland scientist and review engineer. 14. Per KCRS 1.03, 114th Avenue S.E. shall be improved to Urban Neighborhood Collector standards (KCRS 2.03) where it abuts the site, unless'a variance is approved by the King County Department of•Pub'llc WorK9. No variance will be granted which diminishes compliance with the RCW. 58.17.110 approval criterion which requires safe walkways or sidewalks for school children. The final recording of the subdivision shall include the dedication of additional right-of-way as specified by KCRS 2.03. 15. Southeast 265th Street shall be designed and constructed as a full -width Urban Subcollector Street (KCRS 2.03), unless a variance is approved by the King County Department -of Public Works. The final recording of the subdivision shall include the appropriate dedication of Right of Way as specified by KCRS 2.03. No variance will be granted which diminishes compliance with the RCW 58.17.110 approval criterion which requires safe walkways or sidewalks for school children. NOTE The condition listed above assumes the southern half of S.E. 265th will be constructed by the preliminary subdivision of 'Lindental Meadows' prior to approval of the engineering plans for 'Julie's Addition.' If the southern half of the roadway is not constructed at the time of engineering plan approval, then 'Julie's Addition shall construct S.E. 265th Street to an Urban Half Street standard per KCRS 2.06. 16. The western half of 116th Avenue S.E. fronting the proposed subdivision shall be designed and constructed as an Urban Neighborhood Collector (KCRS 2.03), unless a variance is approved by the King county Department of Public Works. No variance will be granted -which diminishes compliance with the RCW 58.17.110 approval criterion which requires safe walkways or sidewalks 5.sChool'children. for i; kz NOTE: The condition listed above assumes the eastern half Of 116th Avenue S.E. will be constructed oy the preliminary subdivision of 'Lindental' prior to the approval of the engineering plans for 'Julie's Addition.* Julie's Addition Amended Report S89P0110 Page 13 If the eastern half of the roadway is not constructed at the time of engineering plan approval, then 'Julie's Addition' shall construct S.E. 265th Street to an-Uroan Neighborhood Collector Half -Street standard per KCRS 2.U6. 17. To allow for the future widening of 116th Avenue S.E. to a Principal Arterial (KCRS 2.02), the recording of the proposed subdivision will provide the dedication of additional right-of-way. The western half of the right-of-way measured from the centerline of 116th Avenue S.E. shall total 50 feet in width (KCRS 2.02). 16. If the entrance of the proposed subdivision is located on 114th Avenue S.E., then the constructed centerline of the entrance road shall match the constructed centerline of the proposed entrance road of the 'Oakhill' subdivision, . unless a variance to KCRS 2.08.E is obtained from the King �., County Department of Public Works. 19. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 116tn / Avenue S.E. and 114th Avenue S.E. from those lots which abut it. 20. Any planter island within any cul de sac turnaround shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat. 21. All lots adjoining an area or having area with a NGPE restriction shall be provided with an acceptable boundary delineation between the lot of portions of the lot and the area restricted with the NGPE. Said boundary delineation oe shall be 1A place prior to any grading or clearing.of the subdivision and remain in place until a dwelling is constructed on the lot and ownership is transferred to the first owner -occupant. 22.1 If lot make-up area is required, calculations demonstrating compliance, including the provision of sufficient flat, dry usable open space, if applicable, - must be submitted prior to approval of the plan and profile. (This requirement is separate from and in addition to open space required in KCC 19.38.) 23. Joint -use driveways shall be provided on the common boundary of lots 15 and 16, and lots 17 and 18, to limit the number of access points on Southeast 265th Street. 24. A homeowners association or othr workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of BALD which L provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the open space area(s). 25. The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements of this development as mitigation. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. a. A 25-foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation is required around the wetland, with an additional 15—foot building setback line (BSBL) beyond the buffer. b�. The wetland and associated buffer shall have a Native ,.4 rowth Protection Easement (NGPE) placed upon them, ' and a 15-foot building setback line (BSBL) shall be shown on the edge of the NGPE. C. The wetland and buffer shall be shown In a separate tract. Julie's Addition Amended Report 509Pollu Page 14 d. The wetland may be used for storinwater detention provided that further analysis addresses the impacts of this use, and a mitigation plan is approved by King County wetlands staff. e f. h. The following on -site detention standard shall apply: Volumes of storage should accommodate the Post -development 100-year, 24-hour runoff with a stormwater release rate of 70% of the predevelopment 2-year, 24-hour runoff. All runoff should be computed using the SCS curve -number methods described in the recently -adopted King Conty Surface Water Design Manual. The on -site stream shall be placed in a separate tract, an NGPE, a minimum of 50 feet in width. The following statement shall be shown on the approved engineering plans and recorded final plat: NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AND BUILDING SETBACKS Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial inteest In the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that.benefit the public health, safety and welfare, Lncluding control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land, subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation vithin.theeasement. The vegetation within the easement may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without express permission from King County, . which permission must be obtained In writing from the King County Building and Land Developinent Division or its successor agency. Before and during the course of any grading, building construction, or other development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE the common boundary between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of King County or its successor agency. The applicant shall be subject to any development fees for mitigating impacts to schools if said fees are adopted by the King County Council through ordinance Prior to final plat approval. Mitigation measures may include enhancement of the wetland and buffer, and/or creation of additional wetlands on the site at a 1:1 area basis and equivalent or better wetland functions. A Wetland Enhancement Plan final grades and hydrology, planting plan showing plat locations. Applicant shall is required, with proposed including a detailed species, sizes and post a Wetland Enhancement Julie's Addition Amended Report S89pollo Page 15 Bond in an amount to cover the cost of planting and constructionmanagementby a wetlands consultant, and shall pay a fee to cover the cost of BALD's monitoring the enhancement project. A three-year monitoring period Is required to aesure that the project meets its performance standards. Upon satisfactory completion of the final monitoring inspection of the site, King County BALD wetlands staff shall release the Bond. If the project has not met its performance standards at the end of the monitoring period, the applicant is responsible for preparation and implementation of a contingency plan to remedy the situation. k. Roadways shall be relocated outside wetland buffers. 261: The tight -of -way for the cul de sac bulb shall not be located within the NGPE buffer area. It may, however, be placed within the 15-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL1, provided that no paved surface is located within the building setback -area. 27. The cul de sac turnaround bulb radius shall be determined by the Subdivision Tecnnical Committee based upon' consultation with the County Road Engineer. Any County Road Engineer decision togrant or deny a variance regarding the bulb radius shall precede road plan and profile approval. ORDERED this 24th day of April, Zoning and Subdivision r TRANSMITTED this 24th day of April, 1991, by certified mail,•tu the following parties of record: Ed Boyle Dale E Jill Cosand Dr. George T. Daniel Gwenn Escher Gregory Heath, P.E.. Larry Hunter Ci Charles Kiefer John Kiefer Richard Nevitt Linda Tanabe Scott Thomas Mr. i Mrs. R. D. Yadon TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1991, to the following parties of record: Kim.Claussen, Building and Land Development Division Tammy Johnson, Building and Land Development Division Laura Kaye, Building and Land Development Division Joe Miles, Building and Land Development Division Lisa Pringle, Building and Land Development Division Steve Townsend, Building and Land Development Division Angela Velasquez, Building and Land Development Division Gail D.kce Diana;'ilnared James Lutz, HSDOT New Construction Services Tom Kellogg King County COnserv. Dist. Meg Moorehead, Public works Arthur Thornbury -Julie's Addition Amended Report' ''''S89PO110 ' "` Page 16 NOTICE' UP".. rr' rI i,;• :1 1RIGHT TO APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL ACTION'REUUIREU In order'to'appeal'the' 'recommenda'tlon of''the"Examiner, written notice'°ofIappeal" must"be filed" with''the"'Cler'klof' the! King County Council' with* a''fee-of`''470.'0011(cbeck'" payable' to King County''Office' of Finance )` on"o'r"before' may '8;1991:" If a noti'ce''of appeal' is filed,' the 'original`and, V copies- of a writtenlappeal'statement`spec•i•fying the basis"foc the appeal and''aigument''in"support' of'the �'appealimust"be E'llledlwith the Clerk of. 'the 'King" County Counci`i`"on'•o'r' be'forenMay"1'5", 1991. Appeal�statementa"may refs- r'onTy' to facts' contained: in the' hearing record: new facts may not be presented`o'n'appeal. Pi'lingi' requires 'actual'delivery'to'the 'Of fice1o'E"the'Clerk of the Council, Room 403, King•County Courthouse., prior to the clo-selof"business'(4:30'P.M .)�on'the date due Prior mailing is not'suEfici'ant' if actual' receipt' by, the 'C1'erk1does' not occur withln�the'applicable`time'per'lod.olThe .Examiner�does'not have authority" to)extend•'the Lime' perliod'un'l'ess',the" OEfi'ce'of" 'the Clerk is not open on the specified c'losing'date', Inlwhich event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business dayl:isl� sufficient: to'meet' the" fill`ing"requirement'. l" " ti,i,lo ....•r. .+1 ir, .inr •�'T u;,!riV1•;au: a�i• IELanwr'itten notice of�appeal':and''fil'ing'lfee are'not"filed within '14^calendar days! of" the?dAte"of-'this report',`or if a written appea'1^'statem'snt"land argument7a're"not'lfiled"within 21 calendar days of the date* .of thin'report,lthe"ClerO of"the i' Council shall place a proposed•brdinance which Implements the Examiner's recommended` acti'onlontih'e''agenda"ofJt.he"next''` available Council meeting. At 'that meeting, the Council may' -.--adopt-the—Examiner's.:+recommendaLion, may defer action, ma'y refer the mat ter?to`a'�Counci•l committee, .or':.may'remand' to' the EXam"finer—for..fur.thei-lh'aarLng`or-further consideration. . u1,A Actiondoll'the`1 council- Pina1.."`1The`1act ion 'of � the ,Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the'Examiner shall be final and concluaive Unless '•wi,thin`•thlrty (30)'days from the date of the action an aggrieved ';party or per a on,app]i,es for a' "writlof certiorari from'the+superior court and'`f0!'the` County of King, State of Washi.ngton';7for,the3pucposewof'review of the action taken. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER'18,'1990,`JANUARY 24'"199IT, °AND '' APRIL 9, 1991 PUBLIC'HEARINGS1014 BALD FILE NO:gS89P611U"- JULIE'S ADDITION 7^I"I" • .. .,Ili.. A'.•1. I,� i i1 yn..• R.S.'Titust'was.the"Hearing Examiner in this matter .ti^''`' Participating in the December 18,`1990 hearing were.Kim Cla'dsaen,"Laura Kaye, and Joe*Miles of the Building and Land DevAlopmen t,Division,•RiahardINevitt,`tEd Boyle )'diidOScott Thomas:' Participating in the January.24, 1991"hea'eing were Kim cla'uasen of the Building and Land Development Division, Ed Boyle, and-,GwennIEscher.''Particlpating inIthe'•'Apri'1"9,"1991 heating were rKim "Claussen;''Joe"Mil9a,'and IEd'Boyl'e'.'" . , .I. . -. . .•I. 1•r :•1.-1 iin �. ",IA ln-it.i:ifo ,: The following'exhibits were'offered and"entered"into the record on December '181''-1990: "'"" "" r' Exhibit No.•l'' "Buil'ding''and'Land Deve10Pment�Didision'a Preliminary Report dated Decemoer 18, 1990 Exhibi No. 2 Application dated November 8, 1989 ExhiNo. '3 Environmental Cnecklist dated Novemoer.8, 1989 Exhi`tb t'No.-'4"' 'Mitigated'Determination of Nonsignlficance ,I:,r- s;s•:i dated'JuneF12, 1,990 'lvu,.:. Exhibit No. 5 '"Affidavi't"of'Posting indicating 'November 14, 1990 as date of poeting and'indicating November 19, 1990 as date affidavit was received by Building and Land uevelopment Division ' .awlw.rlwwa ••.� .. Y ' ——.'rr.±�:�Ct.�_'Y4:a.11YiniYiWK1Jd'e.:+MWdJ. MwV..... �.�;w.�ul:w �>wra A�•.I3�.i'.:..rt�•�.ev'T7M:4✓JIN/:+:.W:J.:aO:: hs'�.. .. • Julie's Addition Amended Report S89P0110 Page 17 Exhibit No. 6 Revised plat received June 19, 1990 Exhibit No. 7 Assessor's Maps NW/SW 28-22-5 i NE/SE 29-22-5 Exhibit -No . 8 Land Use Maps 627E c 654W! Exhibit No. 9 Wetland Report prepared by del Moral s Associates received January 19, 1990 Exhibit No. 10 Letter from the Yadons received July 3, 1990 Exhibit No. 11 Letter from Kent School District received September 240 1990 Exhibit No. 12 Letter from WSDOT received June 18, 1990 Exhibit No. 13 Examiner's decision/recommendations on SEPA appeal dated December 14,1990 Exhibit No. 14 Vicinity Map depicting neighboring plats Exhibit No. 15 Memo dated December 21, 1990 to Brian Shea from Meg Moorehead Exhibit No. 16 Recommended New Condition No. 28 ' The following exhibits were offered and entered Into the record on January 24, 1991: Exhibit No. 17 Letter to Kent School District dated January 8, 1991 Exhibit No. 18 Summary of Projected Enrollment - Kent School District Exhibit No. 19 Applicant's statement opposing Kent School District recommendation to deny . The following exhibits were offered and entered Into the record •on April 4,•1991 Exhibit No. 20 Applicant's statement with attachments Exhibit No. 21 Applicant's letter of Febr.uar,y':19, 1991•t' requesting reconsideration { The -following exhibit was entered April 19, 991, pursuant to administrative continuance: .' Exhibit No. 22 Memorandum from Kim Claussen to,Examiner, dated April 19,"1991; with copy'of Examiner's Report on Meridian Green Phase II Rezone attached RST:gb S89P0110/Julie's Addition 5695D 1 2 3 4 5 N 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 May 9, 1991 Introduced by Lois North 1111DIII Proposed No. 90-496 ORDINANCE 1499 5 AN ORDINANCE concurring with the recommendation of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner to approve subject to conditions (modified) the Preliminary Plat of JULIE'S ADDITION, designated Building and Land Development File 06. S89p0110. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein the findings and conclusions contained in the amended report of the zoning and subdivision examiner dated April 24, 1991 which was filed with the clerk of the council on May 91 1991 to approve, subject to conditions (modified) the preliminary plat of Julie's Addition, designated by the building and land development division, file no. S89P0110, and the council does hereby adopt as its action the recommendation(s) contained in said report. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 7 �d ay of C 11 I I . 19 �U PASSED this day of 194�. KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chair ATTEST: Clerk of the Council RECEIVED NOV 3 0 1994 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 May 9, 1991 Introduced by Lois North 4015D/67 Proposed No. 90-496 ORDINANCE WO: 9 5 AN ORDINANCE concurring with the recommendation of the zoning and Subdivision Examiner to approve subject to conditions (modified) the Preliminary Plat of JULIE'S ADDITION, designated Building and Land Development File No. S89p0110. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein the findings and conclusions contained in the amended report of the zoning and subdivision examiner dated April 24, 1991 which was filed with the clerk of the council on May 91 1991 to approve, subject to conditions (modified) the preliminary plat of Julie's Addition, designated by the building and land development division, file no. s89P0ll0, and the council does hereby adopt as its action the recommendation(s) contained in said report. NTR0 DUCED AND READ for the first time this yxd ay of n , 19 �U PASSED this day of _I..LL_19qI_. KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chair ATTEST: Clerk of the Council RECEIVED NOV 3 0 1994 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT �X/' Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Certain Equipment Rental vehicles are no longer needed by the City and the Public Works Committee has recommended that they be declared surplus and be sold at the State Auction on March 11, 1995. 3. EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and list of proposed surplus vehicles, Public Works Committee minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence by Jim Bennett was not received) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO ✓ YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: n_ pp Councilmember moves, Councilmember G� T' seconds that the recommended list of Equipment Rental vehicles be declared as surplus and that they be sold at the State Auction on March 11, 1995. DISCUSSION• HI" ACTION • m c' Council Agenda Item No. 4B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom 0 RE: Surplus of Vehicles The enclosed list of Equipment Rental vehicles are no longer needed by the City. As such, we are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the next State auction on March 11, 1995. ACTION: Declare this equipment as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the State auction on March 11, 1995. CTY CIF VENT DATE: January 2 3 rd, 1995 CNGINEENi qc4 DEFT. TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Mana THRU: Nelden Hewitt, Acting Operati ns Manager/ SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles I am requesting authorization to surplus the following vehicles. These vehicles are no longer needed by the City. We will sell them at the State of Washington auction on March lith, 1995. D33099 #35, a 1984 Dodge D150 Pickup SN:IB7GD14T8ES353062 - 93,712 miles Vehicle has been used by the Street Department until replaced in 1991 and it has since been used as a line vehicle. Since it has high mileage, it should be surplused. D34132 #59, a 1985 Chevrolet 1/2 Ton Pickup 2GCEC14M7F1176110 - 95,891 mile' Had been replaced in 1990 and is used as a line vehicle ever since. High mileage, should be disposed of before expensive repairs are needed. D33098 #67, a.1984 Dodge D150 Pickup 1B76D14T6ES353061 - 60,571 miles Used by the Parks Department and replaced in 1993, it has body damage and appearance is rough. Would need painting and body repair. D28844 #83, a 1980 Dodge 1 Ton Dump Truck D31KTAS144253 - 57,630 miles Line equipment replaced with'new truck in 1990. Rough appearance, needs hoist repair. 0563.1D 4343, a 1989 Chev Caprice lGlBL5174KR183516 - 101385 miles I's Extreme high miler. It has been replaced with a new vehicle in 1993. 08797D #362, a 1991 Chev Caprice 161B65372MR134038 - 91,071 miles Replacement was extended in 1993 and replaced in 1994. It has hic- mileage and is no longer needed. DATE: January 23rd, 1995 mO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director -:ROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager THRU: Nelden Hewitt, Acting Operations Manager SUBJECT: Surplus Vehicles Page 2 of 3 LRA417 r391, a 1986 Ford LTD Sedan 1FABP393XGG104568 - 67,385 miles This was a Budget rental car purchased used in 1987. It has been used by Police Administration and replaced in 1994 with a van for training. It is in need of repainting. D30685 r070, a 1982 Dodge D150 pickup 1B76D14P6CS282282 - 70,748 miles Vehicle was first used by Parks Maintenance until it was replaced in 1989, then it was used as a line vehicle. Due to the mileage .and condition, it should be sold. Needs body and paint work. 01828D 1-71269, a 1.987 Dodge D150 Pickup 1B7HD14T8H5481861 - 66,325 miles Used by Parks Department and replaced in 1994. Body is in poor condition and if kept, it would need body repair and painting. Better to surplus. D20801 r44, a 1981 D150 Pickup 1B7HD14E4BS161087 - 83,992 miles Replaced in 1992 and used as a line vehicle. Mileage is high and should be surplused before expensive repair is needed. r306, a 1984 Kawasaki KZ1000 Motorcycle JKAKZCPlDE8502169 - 46,832 miles Unit was used for traffic until replaced in 1989. It has been used for training until now. We will use two of the newer bikes, that have been replaced, for training. r307, a 1984 Kawasaki KZ1000 Motorcycle JKAKZCP10EB502026 - 47,847 miles Unit was used for traffic until replaced in 1989. It has been used for training until now. We will use two of the newer bikes, that have been replaced, for training. r358, a 1991 Chevrolet Caprice 161BL5373MR133903 - 96,999 miles Used by Police Patrol. High mileage. Has been replaced with a new unit. DATE: TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: Page 3 of 3 January 23rd, 1995 Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager Nelden Hewitt, Acting Operations Manager Surplus Vehicles F363, a 1991 Chevrolet Caprice lGlBL5370MR134314 - 94,663 miles Used by Police Patrol, has high mileage. Replaced with a new unit in 1994. n308, a 1987 Chevrolet Caprice lGlBL5165HA100349 - 83,550 miles Used by Police Traffic and replaced in 1994. Has a transmission that is slipping. At this mileage it is better to surplus now than repair. JS/map A:ER067 Committee unanimously recommended that this project be accepted as complete. 0 Surplus Vehicles Wickstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles that we are proposing to surplus at the March auction and we need authorization to do so. In response to Tim Clark, Jack Spencer explained that the Parks Dept uses their vehicles in the parks and they have alot of engine hours even though the speedometer does not reflect that. Jack stated that these vehicles are to a point where, rather than spending a lot of money on these, it would be better to surplus them. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the state auction on March 11 th. Meeting adjourned: 5:40 P.M. E P/� Kent City Council Meeting Date February 21, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: VOTER'S PAMPHLET ON INITIATIVE PETITION 101 - ORDINANCE (CURFEW) 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to RCW 29.81A.010, the City Council may authorize publication and distribution of a voter's pamphlet, however, such authorization must be at least 45 days before the special election held on the matter. A special election on Initiative Petition 101 is scheduled for April 25, 1995. Authorization for the voter's pamphlet must be granted before March 10, 1995. Due to the deadlines involved, this matter is being scheduled for full Council consideration with- out committee review or action. 3. EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc.) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES ✓ 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIREDO /�: $ $,DO SOURCE OF FUNDS: Lea. ./ F4Ae/ 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of Ordinance No., J3 authorizing publication and distribution of a voter's pamphlet pursuant to RCW 29.81A.010. DISCUSSION: ACTION: M Council Agenda Item No. 4C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing the publication and distribution of a local voter's pamphlet for the special election of April 25, 1995 relating to Initiative Petition 101 establishing a curfew for juveniles within the City of Kent. WHEREAS, a Citizens' Initiative Petition No. 101 was filed with the City Clerk on January 23, 1995, and has been certified as sufficient pursuant to RCW 35A.11.100; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.17.260 and KCC 1.30.170, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of February 7, 1995, considered the issue of the Initiative Petition and moved to call for a special election on the proposed ordinance to be held April 25, 1995 by mail ballot; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in conjunction with the mail ballot election, desires to publish and distribute a local voter's pamphlet on the matter of Initiative Petition 101; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 010 SECTION 1. That pursuant to RCW 29.81A.020 there is hereby authorized the publication and distribution of a local voter's pamphlet on the matter of Initiative Petition 101, which would add a new chapter to Title 9 of the Kent City Code entitled "Juvenile Safety and Family Reconciliation", establishing a curfew for juveniles within the City of Kent. SECTION 2. That pursuant to RCW 29.81A.080, a committee be appointed to prepare arguments advocating voters' approval of the measure, and that another committee be appointed to prepare arguments advocating voters' rejection of the measure. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is directed to file this ordinance and other related material required with King County for the purpose of publication and distribution of the voter's pamphlet on the matter of Initiative Petition 101. SECTION 4. That City Administration is authorized to expend funds necessary to carry out the special election and the publication and distribution of the voter's pamphlet, as set forth in this ordinance. SECTION 5. 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 2 invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 6. 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: m BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 97 PASSED day of APPROVED PUBLISHED day of day of , 1994. 1994. 1994. 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. /wwo/t/t ./ BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 4 (SEAL) CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE / G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson - Chair, Leona Orr, Christi Houser STAFF PRESENT: John Hillman, Bob Hutchinson, Roger Lubovich, Arthur Martin, Brent McFall, Kelli O'Donnell MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 9:33 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending January 30, 1995, in the amount of $810,897.50 (1994 expenses) and the period ending January 31, 1995, in the amount of $1,061,143.49 (1995 expenses) were approved for payment. Appointment of Auditing Officer - Ordinance Director of Operations Brent McFall explained that at the request of the State Auditor, this ordinance would codify the current process for audit responsibility. McFall stated that he or John Hillman from Finance would be glad to answer any questions the Committee has. When no questions were asked, Committeemember Christi Houser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance appointing the Operations Committee or its authorized designee as the City auditing officer. RIC Inspection Project McFall stated that the Regional Justice Center (RJC) will soon be entering into the construction phase which to the City means inspections. McFall stated that the City cannot handle this large of project with the current staff and proposed that a special project fund be set up to be financed out of the fees for the RJC permits. He noted that the expected permit revenue is $190,000 which has not been budgeted for and asked that these funds be placed in a project account to pay for the two positions. McFall noted that one position would begin immediately and the second would begin approximately January 1996. He emphasized that these positions would be hired with the understanding that when the project was completed the positions would be phased out also. It is possible that if annexation passes positions may be added in the future that these inspectors could apply for if Council creates new positions. Committeemember Houser stated that she was uncomfortable hiring two positions and suggested hiring two part time inspectors. She also questioned the expense of upgrading a position to lead inspector. McFall replied that the upgrade was not in the proposal. Houser asked if it would be possible to hire them as part-time to save funds. McFall noted that it would depend on the workloads and issues of assignment. During further discussion, Orr agreed that it seemed like a lot of money just for inspections. Building Inspector Bob Hutchinson explained that it is an awful lot of project. He stated that the largest project in recent history was Signature Pointe. This project is similar to having four Signature Pointe projects at one time. He noted it was not an exact science to come up with projections but using historic data this is the best he has. Hutchinson noted that there is enough activity now that there is no surplus inspector time with current staff. It is anticipated that one inspection may require three or four inspectors at once with two or three days of no inspection in which the project person can help catch up. He noted that no staffing could result in construction delays. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY S, 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson - Chair, Leona Orr, Christi Houser STAFF PRESENT: John Hillman, Bob Hutchinson, Roger Lubovich, Arthur Martin, Brent McFall, Kelli O'Donnell MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 9:33 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson. A nroval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending January 30, 1995, in the amount of $810,897.50 (1994 expenses) and the period ending January 31, 1995, in the amount of $1,061,143.49 (1995 expenses) were approved for payment. Appointment of Auditino-Officer - Ordinance Director of Operations Brent McFall explained that at the request of the State Auditor, this ordinance would codify the current process for audit responsibility. McFall stated that he or John Hillman from Finance would be glad to answer any questions the Committee has. When no questions were asked, Committeemember Christi Houser moved to recommend approval of the ordinance appointing the Operations Committee or its authorized designee as the City auditing officer. RTC Inspection Project McFall stated that the Regional Justice Center (RJC) will soon be entering into the construction phase which to the City means inspections. McFall stated that the City cannot handle this large of project with the current staff and proposed that a special project fund be set up to be financed out of the fees for the RJC permits. He noted that the expected permit revenue is $190,000 which has not been budgeted for and asked that these funds be placed in a project account to pay for the two positions. McFall noted that one position would begin immediately and the second would begin approximately January 1996. He emphasized that these positions would be hired with the understanding that when the project was completed the positions would be phased out also. It is possible that if annexation passes positions may be added in the future that these inspectors could apply for if Council creates new positions. Committeemember Houser stated that she was uncomfortable hiring two positions and suggested hiring two part time inspectors. She also questioned the expense of upgrading a position to lead inspector. McFall replied that the upgrade was not in the proposal. Houser asked if it would be possible to hire them as part-time to save funds. McFall noted that it would depend on the workloads and issues of assignment. During further discussion, Orr agreed that it seemed like a lot of money just for inspections. Building Inspector Bob Hutchinson explained that it is an awful lot of project. He stated that the largest project in recent history was Signature Pointe. This project is similar to having four Signature Pointe projects at one time. He noted it was not an exact science to come up with projections but using historic data this is the best he has. Hutchinson noted that there is enough activity now that there is no surplus inspector time with current staff. It is anticipated that one inspection may require three or four inspectors at once with two or three days of no inspection in which the project person can help catch up. He noted that no staffing could result in construction delays. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, Cont FEBRUARY 8,1995 During further discussion Orr asked if it would be possible to track the actual hours involved in the project. Bob stated that it is not currently done but he could certainly come up with a system for this project. Houser asked if a separate vehicle would be purchased. McFall stated that an existing vehicle would be used with some equipment rental charges associated with it. Committee Chair Johnson asked that a quarterly report be brought back to the Committee. McFall suggested that one position be authorized now with quarterly reports and coming back to the Committee for authorization to hire a second inspector. Hutchinson noted that with this type of construction it is hard to predict when there will be an acceleration of activity; January is the best estimate at this time. After discussion of the impacts of annexations on inspectors, Orr moved to recommend that a project budget be established for the Regional Justice Center in the amount of $190,000 to be funded by permit fees paid by King County for the construction of the Regional Justice Center, and that one building inspector position be authorized in the project budget. This position will terminate upon conclusion of the RJC project. Any remaining funds in the project budget upon conclusion of the project shall be transferred to the General Fund of the City. Quarterly reports will be provided to the Operations Committee. Houser seconded and the motion passed 3-0. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there was any other business to come before the Committee. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m. Page 2 MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1995 PRESENT: Jim Bennett, Chair Norm Angelo Tim Clark Mary Berg Christi Houser Ed Crawford Roger Lubovich Meeting called to order at 5:03 p.m. by Chairman Bennett. RENEWAL OF INSPECTION CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY Chief Berg explained that they were requesting re -authorization of the interlocal agreement between King County and the City for doing commercial inspections in Fire District 37. This has been ongoing for last six or seven years, and basically is just a renewal of the contract. Berg requested approval to place on the consent calendar for authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract on behalf of the City. Motion by Christi Houser; seconded by Tim Clark. Passed 3-0. AMENDMENT TO EMS SERVICE CONTRACT WITH KING COUNTY Chief Angelo explained that each year the County comes back with what the EMS life support levy is. Last year it was $636,405, and this year its up to $651,423. This amount is based on population, assessed valuation, the number of calls, and response time. The Mayor already has authority to sign the amendment to compensation during the six year life of the contract, but as a matter of information and courtesy, the Public Safety Committee is always informed of the addendum. Following Tim Clark's request for a better understanding of the issue, Chief Angelo explained that these funds come to the various cities and fire districts as a part of the emergency medical services levy that is passed in the County every six years. A portion of the money goes to advanced life support, a portion to administration, a portion to training, and a portion to capital replacement for equipment. A significant portion goes to the basic life support service deliverers. Basically, the levy is set in place to not completely cover, but to support basic life support. The numbers presented today represent the total funds given to both the City and the Fire District, which offsets a portion of the City's costs. Added Items: Bennett asked Angelo to expand on the newspaper article about the fire in Seattle where it said there are two or three structures in Kent that were similar, such as Burdic Feed. Berg clarified that in talking with the newspaper, he did NOT mention names of any businesses, the newspaper did that. Angelo explained that he felt the paper was fairly straight in much of what was written, however they were looking for stories — the press was looking for a reason to make things larger than life and he didn't want to contribute to that. Seattle already had enough pressure and pain going on. Angelo stated that the whole valley is not without its challenges. A significant difference here is that many of the buildings are MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING January 17, 1995 Page 2 of 2 under the newer code. However, buildings in the older part of town are older construction and present different risks from the rest. Angelo further explained that there are areas of concern and potential hazards, but feels they have pretty good direction on fire service. Angelo further stated that fire service will never be a risk free service, the risk will always be there. ► Bennett explained that the issue of some type of "Pooper Scooper" ordinance for the parks was recently brought to the Public Works Committee, and was passed on. Apparently there are people who are taking their dogs to the parks and dropping them off to do their business, and Parks Maintenance is taking the criticism for it. Bennett advised that he had Lubovich check into it, and found that Kent does have a leash law, but no pooper scooper ordinance. Bennett asked Crawford if there were such an ordinance, would it be enforced. Houser stated she didn't know what the police could do about it, they should contact animal control. Crawford explained that if there were a person in the park with a dog, and the dog was off the leash, they would not tell people to call animal control. They would enforce the leash law. That is, if there is an officer in the park and someone tells the officer that the dog is not on a leash. The officer would not take the dog into custody though. If the dog could be identified as being with an owner somewhere, the officer would tell the owner to put the dog on a leash. Crawford further stated that they would respond to these calls, but they would be a low priority. Bennett said that a lot of the complaints are coming from West Fenwick Park, and this issue is a major problem in Seattle. Houser said that she thought a lot of the dogs are running wild. Crawford advised that the dogs that are running wild are an animal control issue. Bennett explained that the dogs he's talking about are not running wild. The complaints are related to the people who drop their dogs off, let them run around and do their thing, and then put them back in the car and go home. Bennett further explained that he would not have brought the issue up had there not been complaints, and indicated that he was just looking for some type of solution. Crawford asked if the City has an ordinance that allows Parks Authorities to make rules for the parks by posting signs, indicating that if the City has rule making authority for the parks, you really didn't need an ordinance. You would just post a sign saying that dogs must be on a leash in the parks. Lubovich indicated that you could post it, but you would not be able to cite them without some sort of law on the books. Houser said she thought that the signs might help. Houser further advised that she did not know that there was a leash law in Kent. When she first came here, there was a Dog Under Control Law. As long as your dog was under control, you did not have to have them on a leash. Lubovich explained that about two years ago they made some changes to the animal control code to be consistent with the county and that is probably where the change came from. Lubovich said that the Parks Director can post the signs because there is a law in effect, and asked if there were specific parks. Bennett advised they were Russell Road and West Fenwick Parks. Lubovich advised that he would talk to the parks director, and provide a status report at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13, 1995 PRESENT: JUDY WOODS ED WHITE TIM CLARK JACK SPENCER DON WICKSTROM MR & MRS RUST GARY GILL MCl/METRO REPRESENTATIVES TOM BRUBAKER DIANE HARPER, METRO ABSENT: PAULMANN JIM BENNETT Metro Six -Year Service Program Wickstrom introduced Diane Harper, representative of Metro Transit Department. Diane briefly went over Metro's Report on the Six Year Plan and Service Alternatives for the South King County Sub -Area. She explained that Metro needs to adopt a Six Year Plan whether or not the RTA passes. Metro therefore is asking for guidance from communities as to what that Plan should reflect. Diane noted that by getting guidance on just the bus plan, when the RTA vote occurs we can very quickly go either way and submit this to the County Council. Metro has prepared two alternatives; Baseline and Multi -Center. At this time Diane highlighted some points in the report noting that this is not an increase in service based upon taxes. The funding for this new service is from Metro's shift in the capital budget to the service budget that Executive Locke and County Council adopted last Spring. She noted that if the RTA gives a positive vote, than there will be more resources to work from. Diane provided maps explaining the different routes in this community. Clark stated that commuters ability to accept the change in transfers, also is based on their 'comfort level' when that transfer is being made. Clark asked if there was an attempt to accommodate that as the system requires more transfers. Diane explained if the service plan is adopted, the capital budget would be re -prioritized to make additional transfer centers with better lighting and security. Wickstrom said that this has been before SCATBD and at this time everyone is gathering their votes. Committee unanimously recommended Council support Metro's Multicenter Alternative per its Six Year Service Program. MCI Metro Franchise Agreement Brubaker gave a brief background on what has occurred regarding the MCI Metro Franchise Agreement, explaining that the City and MCI have been in ongoing negotiations for about 2 - 3 months. He said that when it first came to this Committee, Councilmember Clark raised a number of issues and we have restructured the franchise in some significant respects and those changes were approved at the last Public Works Committee meeting. Since that time however, a couple of other issues have come forward. Brubaker stated that we have reviewed franchises with the Cities of Spokane, Bellevue, Sea-Tac and Renton and at this time, he said there are really only two main issues that remain. One is that when a telephone company goes underground, some cities in the state of Washington require the company to lay an extra conduit so that the City, may at a later date, make use of that empty conduit to pull its own fibre optic cable thru. He said the second issue is when existing utility poles are used above ground - there are City owned as well as Puget Power poles - when using City owned poles they apply the same construction standards and restrictions that are applied to Puget Power and secondly, that they create enough attachments on any brackets added to these poles so that more than one line can be added to that bracket. We are trying to create an opportunity for the City to add its own fibre optic line if the need arises. At this time, Brubaker submitted some technical amendments to the agreement; one, clarification on the notice of provisions to the franchise, the other adds the pole standard section, and the third adds the provision that conduit be placed in the ground. Brubaker stated that with other companies wanting to lay conduit and opening up our streets, we may want to construct a latecomers arrangement to compensate them for their expense of installation. Brubaker said that he has not had an opportunity to speak to anyone from MCI on these changes. Brubaker stated that assuming that the City and MCI can come to an agreement, he asked that the Committee authorize moving forward with the franchise at the next Council meeting on the condition that we can work out the final language between the City attorney's office and MCI's attorney. Mario Hagood from MCI stated that they have concerns regarding making additional space at the time the pole attachments are put in place, along with the request for conduits and also with the idea that we offer third parties space during construction. Hagood said that MCI is not in the business of 'renting' conduit space. However, we have agreed in other cities to put conduits in place for municipal use only and not for the designation of third party use. He stated that with regard to the City determining what the reimbursement rate would be that MCI should be able to establish what that reimbursement should be. Hagood again stated that regarding the third party issue, MCI has very strict rules 2 regarding access to their facilities or conduits. However, he said that if the City desires these conduits, and it is done in a fashion that it does not interfere with Metro's construction plans, particularly the schedule, MCI will install this facility for the city at cost plus 10%. Clark asked Wickstrom for background in terms of what the City has done with other utilities in relationship to this sort of situation. Wickstrom stated that primarily, thru a working relationship, we have the utility companies install conduits; we furnish the conduits and they install it as part of their work or, they would do the whole thing. Clark noted that we do have a sincere interest in getting that other conduit laid and if you are going to open the streets, it makes sense to lay it while you are doing this. Hagood stated that we would have a problem if we do that for the City free of charge. He referenced state statutes with regards to preferential treatment; that puts MCI in bad form with other entities that we are in negotiations with. Committee unanimously made the recommendation to revise the franchise consistent with the discussions of today's meeting subject to the approval of MCI and the City Attorney's office for presentation with those revisions at the next Council meeting and to be presented for approval. Tacoma's Second Supply Pipeline Proiect Wickstrom stated that in trying to get the Tacoma Pipeline built, they were running out of money in terms of the bonds etc., and this will delay their project so they have asked participants which are, WD #111, Federal Way Water & Sewer, Covington Water and Kent to all share in the design cost, our cost being $791,000 for the design of the pipeline. He said as noted in their letter to us, there are risks involved and it could be a lost cost because of the problems with different agencies involved, including the Muckleshoot Tribe Authority He said that this project is extremely important to us to meet our long term water needs and this is our next source. Because of the water right moratorium at D.O.E. essentially the impoundment would be our only source which has another long lead time due the environmental issues associated with it. He stated that we need to move on this project; we have the money and it is one of our future options available. Committee unanimously recommended that upon concurrence of the Public Works Director and the City Attorney, authorize the Mayor to execute a memorandum of Understanding with Tacoma relating to funding Kent's share of the design work associated with Tacoma;'s Second Supply Pipeline project. Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement Wickstrom stated that this agreement sets the tone of cooperation for future supply. This C is important to us because Auburn is sitting on a major aquifer - it could supply all our needs and theirs in the future. He said that Auburn's participation in this agreement sets the tone that they are willing to cooperate and that's why we should sign the agreement. It is primarily instigated because WD 111 and Covington need water now and Auburn is willing to share with them. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to execute the South King County Regional Water Association Joint Operating Agreement. Latecomer Agreement - Stillwater Greens Wickstrom explained that this is a latecomer agreement for sewer that was extended in the vicinity of Kent Kangley and 132nd near the Meridian Shopping Center. This agreement would enable the developer to recoup some of his costs incurred in constructing the main. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to prepare and the Public Works Director sign a Latecomer Agreement for the sanitary sewer improvements of Stillwater Greens. Up Front St Improvements vs No Protest LID Covenants No action was taken on this item at this time - Committee stated that Council is very concerned about the whole LID issue. Judy Woods recommended that a workshop be set to discuss the LID procedure. Wickstrom explained that this item was presented at the last Committee meeting and it was decided at that time to take it to Council retreat; nothing was discussed at the retreat. Wickstrom noted that he brought it back to this Committee to get some direction. Wickstrom explained that he has contacted surrounding cities and the County and most of them have up -front improvements; some have means of deferral and there are exemptions for single family residences and short plats. Wickstrom suggested bringing that information back to Committee. Committee concurred that a workshop would be beneficial. Green River Levee Improvements Wickstrom stated that we have completed this contract; it is before the Committee because it is over 10% of the bid amount however it is not a funding problem. He stated that there was alot of bad ground material and we had to import more material than was anticipated. 4 Committee unanimously recommended that this project be accepted as complete. Surplus Vehicles Wickstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles that we are proposing to surplus at the March auction and we need authorization to do so. In response to Tim Clark, Jack Spencer explained that the Parks Dept uses their vehicles in the parks and they have alot of engine hours even though the speedometer does not reflect that. Jack stated that these vehicles are to a point where, rather than spending a lot of money on these, it would be better to surplus them. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the state auction on March 11th. Meeting adjourned: 5:40 P.M. 5