Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/17/1995 City of Kent ml Mee ti n g City Councl Agenda CITY OF , y MOIL Mayor Jim White Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr January 17, 1995 Office of the City Clerk CITY OF Z,Q�J�LSV CS SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 17, 1995 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: 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 - Daughters of the American Revolution/American History Month B. State of the City Month 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR �A. Approval of Minutes -B. Approval of Bills 3 Zb 7 �,C. Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning - Ordinance .0. East Hill Park Expansion Project-Accept as Complete . E. City Council Retreat and City Tour=Set Dates .-F: South Bend Preliminary Plat Extension (SU-94-8) �G. Kent Downtown Partnership Letter of Agreement ,H. Federal Drug and Alcohol Testing Compliance i. Worker's Compensation Claim Handling Contract d. Safety Awards Program Expansion K. Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County -L. Camaby Street Sidewalks -Acceptance ,M. Derbyshire Water Main Replacement-Acceptance N. LID 342- Smith Street-Acceptance -0. Storm Water Drainage Code Revision - Ordinance 3209 -P. Willow Way- Bill of Sale ,Q. Costello Apartments- Bill of Sale Ff. Reiten Road Landslide -Accept as Complete 6: 16th AverQue Water Main -Accept as Complete .;r. -eC� � nE)CCA-H&n - 5e+ pl, d 4. OTHER BUSINESS 3 Z t7 A. Golf Course Debt Refunding - Ordinance and Contracts Ladum Rezone RZ-94-2 X. Meridian Annexation AN-94-7 - Resolution 1 5. BIDS None 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. AEPORTS 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 - Daughters of the American Revolution/ American History Month B) State of the City Address CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action:' , Councilmember W DrLo moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through be Ipproved. T Discussion Vw Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 3, 1995. 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through December 30, and paid on December 30, 1994 after auditing by the Operations Committee on January 11, 1995. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/16-12/30/94 150348-150850 $996,441.81 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 16 through December 31, 1994 and paid on January 5, 1995. Date Check Numbers Amount 1/5/95 Checks 200215-200484 $249,241. 66 Advices 20778-21148 437 , 499 . 31 $686, 740.97 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington January 3 , 1995 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Finance Division Director Miller, Human Resources Division Director Viseth, and Parks Director Hodgson. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Introduction of Yangzhou China, Exchange COMMUNICATIONS Employees. Mayor White introduced May Miller and Jan Toolson, who have been chosen to go to Kent' s Sister City, Yangzhou, China, under the terms of an agreement signed by both mayors and adopted by the City Council. He noted that they will depart for Yangzhou on or about April 1st for 30 days. Ms. Miller thanked the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to represent Kent and said she is looking forward to visiting Yangzhou' s parks and lace factory, and to studying their history and art. She also spoke about the importance of economic development, which creates a strong tax base. Ms. Toolson also thanked the Mayor and the Committee and said she understands being a dip- lomat, after having traveled extensively with the military. She said that she is very honored and will do her best to lay the groundwork for future exchanges . The Mayor noted that Mr. Tong, the municipal employee from Yangzhou, will arrive on or about February 12 , and will be in Kent for ninety days. Employee of the Month. Mayor White introduced Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, who has been selected as Employee of the Month for January. He noted that Mr. O'Neill coordinated the work of fellow employees, City departments and several consultants on the Draft Comprehensive Plan. He added that O'Neill is professional in his conduct, is a diligent worker and consis- tently demonstrates a strong work ethic. Planning Director Harris commended O'Neill for his work on the Growth Management Plan and offered his congratulations. The Mayor pre- sented O'Neill with a plaque. 1 January 3 , 1995 PUBLIC Regional Justice Center update. Wendy Keller COMMUNICATIONS showed aerial photographs of the site before and after the buildings were removed, and noted that they are ready to go to bid on January 19, if approved by the King County Council on January 6. She added that, if all goes as planned, the bids will come in early in March, be awarded by the end of March, and construction will begin in April. She also noted that the second phase of preload will begin next week. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through K be approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of December 13 , 1994 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) SANITATION The Lakes. AUTHORIZATION to accept the bill of sale for The Lakes submitted by University Savings Bank for continuous operation of 1,465 feet of water main extension, 11540 feet of street improvements and 1, 640 feet of storm sewer, and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. This project is located at Lakeside Blvd. West. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Cascade Federal Credit Union. AUTHORIZATION to accept the bill of sale for Cascade Federal Credit Union for continuous operation of 58 feet of water main extension, 134 feet of sanitary sewer, approximately 400 feet of street improve- ment, 20 feet of storm sewer and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. This project is lo- cated at 18020 80th Ave. South. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Plat of Lindental, Phase I. AUTHORIZATION to accept the bill of sale for Phase I Plat of Lindental for continuous operation of 1, 280 feet of water main extension and 1, 665 feet of sani- tary sewer and release of bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works 2 January 3 , 1995 HEALTH & Director. This project is located at 116th Ave. SANITATION SE & Kent Kangley Road. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) R V Parking/Naden Avenue. AUTHORIZATION to accept as complete the contract with Lakeridge Paving Company for the Naden Avenue R.V. Parking Lot project, and release of retainage after re- ceipt of State releases, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract was $19 ,796. 60 . The final construction cost is $17 , 910 .28 . REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Ladum Rezone RZ-94-2 . AUTHORIZATION to set January 17, 1995 as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval for a rezone appli- cation by Larry and Jacqueline Ladum. The property is located at approximately 6300 S. 236th Street. SUBDIVISION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) CODE Subdivision Code Amendment #SCA-94-1. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3206, amending Section 12 . 04 . 420 (C) (5) relating to submission of title reports for subdivisions, as recommended by the Planning Committee. COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) PLAN Council Workshop on Comprehensive Plan. AUTHORIZATION to set January 17 , 1995, at 5: 30 p.m. as the date and time for a Council Workshop on the Kent Comprehensive Plan. ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) ZONING Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Zoning AZ-94-2 . This public hearing is the second of two hear- ings to be held by the City Council on the proposed initial zoning of the Ramstead/East Hill annexation area. The first hearing was held on November 15, 1994 . The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed initial zoning designation as outlined in Attachment A for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area. Lyn Keenan, Planning Consultant, pointed out the area on a map and explained the zoning recommendations. 3 January 3 , 1995 ANNEXATION The Mayor declared the public hearing open. ZONING Frankie Keyes, 10216 S.E. 267th, expressed concern about property located at 26461 104th Avenue S.E. , which was previously zoned RM2400 by the County. She requested that the property be zoned either RM2400 or Commercial. She noted that in an RM2400 zone, as many as sixteen units can be built on the property, and that uses such as medical services would be allowed. She ex- plained that the property is now vacant, and activity has been held off until the zoning is determined. She noted that there has been no interest in leasing the property for residential use, and said that citizens have suggested using the property for a restaurant, gift and/or boutique shops, bed & breakfast, real estate brokerage, day care, or medical facilities. She added that the property is one acre in size. Upon the Mayor' s question, Planning Director Harris explained that the City-wide Comprehen- sive Plan will be presented to the Council at a workshop on January 17th, and that this property could be discussed by the Council at that time. Sylvia Hicks, representing a group of property owners, reiterated their concurrence with the recommendation at the last meeting to approve Plan C with a small MRG addition adjacent to Sequoia Junior High School. She noted that the property Ms. Keyes spoke about buffers onto the wetland area and the main storm drainage area, and that the area should be kept as natural as possible. She discouraged further multifamily uses because of the existing infrastructure. Russ Segnor, representing Charlotte Norder who owns property at 264th and 104th, endorsed the MRD zoning in Alternative 1. He noted that the preservation of open space must be balanced with the accommodation of growth. He said that Norder's property would be developed with some density at the northerly end of the 4 . 5 acre tract, and that the balance would be left open. Karen Rehkop, owner of a convenience store at 11701 Kent-Kangley Road, noted that the store has served the community well for 58 years, and 4 January 3 , 1995 ANNEXATION asked that the Council recognize the use of that ZONING property. There were no further comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED to modify the Planning Commission' s recommenda- tion of approval of the proposed initial zoning designation as outlined in Attachment A for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area (AZ-94-2) as follows: change the zoning designation for Tax Lot #92 in Section 28-22-5 (commonly known as the Totem Pole Grocery property) to Neighborhood Convenience Commercial; all other Planning Commission recommendations would remain as shown; and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Houser seconded. Orr said the reason she recommended the change for the convenience store property is the fact that it has proven to be an important part of the neighborhood for many years. Bennett pointed out that having the grocery store in the neighborhood reduces traffic. Orr also said she recognizes Ms. Keyes' dilemma and asked the Council to consider a bed and breakfast zoning for the City. Mayor White concurred. The motion then carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) RECREATION Reclamation Art Project. APPROVAL of Ruth Tomlinson as the artist to be commissioned for the Reclamation Art Project, as recommended by the Kent Arts Commission and the Selection Jury. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) 1995 Art Plan Budget and Five Year Plan (1995- 1999) . ACCEPTANCE of the 1995 City Art Plan and budget, including acceptance and dispersement of the Reclamation Art Grants from King County Arts Commission and Kent Rotary Club, as recommended by the Parks Committee. The Five Year Art Plan is included in the budget. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through November 30 and paid on November 30, 1994 after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 28 , 1994 . 5 January 3, 1995 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/30/94 149458-149871 $1,709, 971. 89 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through November 30, 1994 and paid on November 28 and December 51 1994 : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/28/94 Checks 199502-199548 $ 25, 390. 97 Advices 19918-19955 20, 941. 95 12/5/94 Checks 199459-199921 $ 308 , 378. 54 Advices 19956-20402 505 .452 . 93 $ 860, 164 . 39 Note: Payroll includes Teamsters Settlement 11/28/94 and Police Holiday BuyBack. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through December 15 and paid on December 15, 1994 after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 28, 1994 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 12/15/94 149872-150347 $2 , 499 ,747 . 41 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 1 through December 15, 1994 and paid on December 20, 1994 : Date Check Numbers Amount 12/20/94 Checks 199922-200214 $ 273 , 324.77 Advices 20403-20777 473 , 282 .53 $ 746, 607 . 30 REPORTS Council President. Woods asked Councilmembers to inform Jan Banister as to whether they plan to attend the Suburban Cities .meeting in Woodinville next Wednesday evening. Operations Committee. Johnson noted that the committee will meet next Wednesday at 9 : 30 a.m. EXECUTIVE At 7 : 40 p.m. , McFall announced an executive SESSION session of approximately 15 minutes to discuss labor negotiations. 6 January 3 , 1995 LABOR The meeting reconvened at 7 : 52 p.m. BENNETT NEGOTIATIONS MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to sign a labor agreement with Corrections Officers for 1993 , 1994 and 1995. Houser seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7 : 55 p.m. Brenda Jac er, MC City Clerk 7 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RAMSTEAD/EAST HILL ANNEXATION ZONING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. . designating zoning for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation, as determined and approved by the Council at it's -1 meeting on January 3, 1995. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, designating zoning for the entire Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area (#AZ-94-2) as depicted in Exhibit "A" . WHEREAS, the area known as Ramstead/East Hill was officially annexed to the City of Kent on July 1, 1994 through Ordinance No . 3171; and WHEREAS, the annexation area is comprised of approximately 594 acres situated on the East Hill of Kent generally south and east of the existing commercial development at the intersection of 104th Ave . S .E . and Kent Kangley Road; ✓and WHEREAS, the Kent City Code requires initial zoning of newly annexed areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent held a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 24 , 1994 to allow public testimony on the zoning designation for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area; and �»mleat�a�� nia WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered various zoning alternatives and recommended approval of zoning alternative 3 as presented in the Planning Department staff report dated October 24 , 1994 amending said alternative by redesignating property south of Sequoia Junior High School as MRD; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on November 15 , 1994 and January 3 , 1995 to allow further public testimony on the zoning designation for the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation Area and to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, following its hearing on January 3 , 1995, the City Council amended the Planning Commission' s recommendation for zoning of the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation area as depicted in Exhibit A by changing the designation for tax parcel number 92 (commonly known as the Totem Pole Grocery Store property) to Neighborhood Convenience Commercial ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15 . 03 . 020 and the laws of the State of Washington, the initial zoning for the area known as the Ramstead/East Hill Annexation 2 Area shall be as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference . Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No . passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK ramsted2.ord 4 RAMS TEAD/EASTHILL ANNEXATION ZONING NCC NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, I ACRE MINIMUM rrrrm-.•>r C.rry LIUM R1-20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20.000 MINIMUM R1-9.6 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9,800 MINIMUM r, R1-7.2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7.200 MINIMUM a I=TT0N AREA 1 R1-5.0 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5,000 MINIMUM MRD DUPLEX MULTIFAMILY MRG GARDEN DENSITY MULTIFAMILY PROPOMW 277IH CORRIDOR �T J4N/C N/LII< PFgJ I �\ \ = ]}11X I 111 IT l I sfauara in JCNCCL �C �Fi• � �L 4 ��' •\ ..Pj�1;S '.: •l 4� yi � g >31,,. ,i 1 1 �f.Y'.t Y,,w� fY : ui:rR ,gek Kyy eri a� Jx/ >x Taf'�'e .R�4 + IT ` cat < 1 -,�{�.a: ..,•'. 1 + ,' 1 a .S[ Si IT y 11 t e < rY a.>, �A] +� ^y+iy",rk•{a of n"iy'.h4°� 3_ a\ e' \ .+ ,y4:�� �y� n.] .3 %�3'-a•. r. ��] � ,J„A F _ >rM I]1.1-1 1, }•.c...: .�. �'.� � ?�� loft Lfn. 'f%Ywa{ ,may }C to qr v a - 1 lr dies Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: 1Cs recomme ed by Parks and Recreation Department staff, Authorization accept as complete the East Hill Park Expansion Project for de lition of houses on the Morrill Property and to release reta age to City Transfer, Inc. upon receipt of State releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL RETREAT AND CITY TOURSET DATE-S- 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set January 21, 1995, at 8:30 a.m. for a tour of areas in the City and in the urban growth area that are under consideration in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, and authorization to set February 3 and 4, 1995, as the date for the Council retreat. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3E [u3 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SOUTH BEND PRELIMINARY PLAT #SU-94-8 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set March 9, 1996 as the date for a one-year extension for South Bend Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-94-8 as requested by Robert A. Bennett to insure that this plat is completed. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Mr. Robert A. Bennett 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F Bennett FS&F, ��. SURVEYORS AND ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 1031 • PUYALLUP,WA 98371-0255 PUY:(206)845-8833 SEA:(206)838-3474 FAX:(206)841-1734 RECEIVED CITY �IE'�T December 22 , 1994 pLpNNING pEPAAT' Attn: Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP Planning Manager City of Kent 220 - 4th Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 Re: South Bend Preliminary Plat 94-3547 Dear Mr. Satterstrom, Per the letter dated July 19 , 1994 to Tom Tazuma, we would like to request an extension of the preliminary plat deadline for final submittal . The owner of the Preliminary Plat of South Bend located in City of Kent, King County, Washington. At this time, I would like to request a ol�ae year extension of the Preliminary Plat approval tto October 16 ,\1995 . The new owner has gained approval from the City of kent for Sewer and Water and Road Designs. The extension of one ( 1 ) year will allow the owner to build out the plat completely and record the Final Plat in King County. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cordially, Robert A. Bennett, PLS cc: Joe Singh Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KENT DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Letter of Agreement with Kent Downtown Partnership for the promotion and marketing of Kent's downtown. Funds have been allocated for this purpose in the 1995 Kent City Budget. 3 . EXHIBITS: Draft letter of agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $32 , 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund as budgeted 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G r� BIT CITY OF e t Jim White, Mayor Kent Downtown Partnership January 6, 1995 Attention: Dee Moschel, Treasurer P.O. Box 537 Kent, WA 98035-0557 Dear Ms. Moschel: This Letter of Agreement is entered into between the City of Kent (City)and Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) for the year of 1995. In an effort to coordinate revitalization of the downtown area of the City of Kent, the Cih- agrees to pay KDP $32,000.00 as approved in the 1995 budget for the purpose of KDP promoting and marketing programs for downtown Kent that will positively impact the local economy including business recruitment and retention, downtown seasonal events, and capital and infrastructure development. KDP agrees to provide proof of matching funds and/or in-kind services amounting to approximately $32,000.00 from citizens and businesses in support of their program. This will be provided as a progress report on matching revenues, activities and programs to the City on a quarterly basis. KDP will indemnify, defend and hold the City of Kent harmless for any and all claims arising as a result of the KDP's use of the funds herein or its performance under this agreement. Funds will be distributed as follows: Payment Billing Amount Check Issue Number Due Date Due Date Balance #1 I/l/95 $2,666.66 1/15/95 $29,333.34 42 2/1/95 $2,666.66 2/15/95 $26,666.68 43 3/1/95 $2,666.66 3/15/95 $24,000.02 #4 4/l/95 $2,666.66 4/15/95 $21,333.36 95 5/l/95 $2,666.66 5/15/95 $18,666.70 96 6/1/95 S2,666.66 6/15/95 $16,000.04 97 7/1/95 $2.666.66 7/15/95 $1 ,333.38 48 8/1/95 S2.666.66 8/15/95 $10,666.72 49 9/1/95 S2,666.66 9/15/95 $8,000.06 910 10/1/95 S2,666.66 10/15/95 $5,331.40 911 11/1/95 S2,666.66 11/15/95 $2,666.74 912 12/1/95 $2666.74 12/15/95 -0- In recognition of the foregoing, the parties affix their signatures to this letter. CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON: KENT DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP: Jim White, Mavor Date Dee Moschel, Treasurer Date 204ih A,E.So./KENT NN ASIfINGTOA oso,,,.i84i/'rELEPHOVP I'06,854-itOD/E4C N 4iB-7714 ' jrJ�7 . Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FEDERAL DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING COMPLIANCE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of Valley Occupational Health Services to serve as the collector for drug screens, the alcohol testing source, the random sample source for testing names, the provider of mandatory training for supervisors, and the provider of the independent Substance Abuse Professional (medical doctor) , all to be provided on a fee basis, 3 . EXHIBITS: Summary of the law and copy of the cover letter that was sent to City employees who are required to hold a commer- cial driver's license 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Estimated at $3 , 100 for 1995 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budgeted at $3 100 in the Medical Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H r_ HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1994 TO: EMPLOYEES HOLDING COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE FROM: SUE VISETH, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING REQUIREMENTS On January 1, 1995, the City will be required to comply with the new drug and alcohol testing requirements issued by the Department of Transportation. Under the new regulations, all employees who are required to have commercial driver's licenses for their jobs are subject to testing. Testing will be required in the following circumstances: Pre-employment; upon reasonable cause or suspicion; post-accident; at random; periodically, in conjunction with required medical exams; and upon return to duty. In addition to testing, the regulations require employers to establish policies, have information on drug and alcohol abuse available to employees, and train supervisors. In an effort to comply with these new regulations, the City is in the process of drafting a Substance Abuse and Testing policy; identifying laboratory and collection sites; and developing training programs for employees and supervisors. The City is also working with representatives from the Teamster and AFSCME bargaining units to negotiate the effects of drug and alcohol testing requirements. A copy of the Alcohol and Drug Rules from the Department of Transportation is attached for your information. If you have any questions regarding these new regulations, please contact the Human Resources Department at ext. 3328. xc: Ken Troup, Teamster Business Representative Rob Spraque,AFSCME Staff Representative Tammy McQueeney, AFSCME Local 21K President Dea Drake, AFSCME Local 21 K Vice-President �v U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ALCOHOL DRUG ' RULES AN OVERVIEW MARCH 1994 ADMINISTRATOR'S MESSAGE The Federal Hishwav Administration is committed to Secretary Federico Pena's goal of promoting safe transportation. including an effort to significantly reduce death and injuries on our Nation's hishways. These new regulations will help us make our highways as safe as possible by assisting employers in identifying commercial motor vehicle drivers who have problems Nvith alcohol and drugs. By enhancing employers' ability on this front. we promote safety b, reducing accidents caused by alcohol and drug abusers. This publication describes the important points of these regulations. I am confident that employers and drivers alike will be pleased with the comprehensive and confidential methods of testing which the Department of Transportation and FHIvVA have developed. Rodney E. Slater Federal Highwav Administrator TABLE OF CONTENTS Alcohol and Dru!* Rules: An Overvie%\ I What Is the Omnibus Act? What Are the Rules? Who Is Affected by These Rules? What Alcohol Use Is Prohibited'? What Alcohol Tests Are Required'? How Will Random Alcohol Testing Work? How Will Alcohol Testing Be Done? Who Does the Testins? What Are the Consequences of Alcohol Misuse? 5 How Will Employees Know About These New Rules? 6 Are Employees Entitled to Rehabilitation'? 6 How Will the FHWA Know If These Rules Are Being Followed? 6 Are Driver Alcohol Testins Records Confidential? 7 Will Foreign Operators Have to Comply With These Rules? 7 Will the DOT Authorize Anv Alcohol Testing Methods Besides Breath Testing? 7 What About Drus Testing? 8 How Is Drug Testing Done? 9 What Druss Are Tested For? 10 Who Reviews and Interprets the Laboratory Results' 10 What Drus Use Is Prohibited? 1 1 What Are the Consequences of a Positive Drus Test? I I How Does Random Druz Testins Work? 1 1 Are Employee Education and Training Required'? 1 Are Driver Drus Testins Records Confidential'? I Where Can I Get More Information'? 1 ; FHWA Resional Offices 14 List of Rules Published 16 ALCOHOL AND DRUG RULES: AN OVERVIEW This pamphlet provides a general overvie�v of the Federal Highway Administration (FH\AA) drug and alcohol testing rules for persons required to have a commercial driver's license (CDL). The rules published by the FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of the Secretary on February 15. 1994 provide the requirements applicable to employers and employee/volunteer drivers covered by the rules. Because the information that follows is a general summary of the rules. it should not be relied upon for the legal requirements of the rules. It does not contain many of the requirements or special circum- stances detailed in the FHWA and DOT rules. A list of the alcohol and drug testing rules published by the FHWA. DOT Office of the Secretary and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA( applicable to CDL drivers and their employers is at the end of this document. Copies of the rules and other information may be obtained from th FHWA offices listed at the back of this parr-' phlet. WHAT IS THE OMNIBUS ACT? The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires alcohol and drug testing of safety-sensitive employees in the aviation. motor carrier. raiiroad. and mass transit industries. The DOT published rules mandating anti-drug and alcohol misuse pre- vention programs in February 1994. The rules also expand and supplement existing drug testing rules published in November 1988 that mandated drug testing of aviation. interstate motor carrier. railroad. pipeline. and commercial marine employees. The February 1994 rules generally require implementation beginning on January I. 1995 for large employers (generally. 50 or more safety-sensi- tive drivers) and Januar\ 1. 1996 for all other emplovers The current rules for drug testing* of interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers remain in effect until the new rules are required to be implemented. concentration of 0.04 percent or greater as WHAT ARE THE RULES? indicated b} an alcohol breath test. The FHWA has issued a rule While using alcohol. requiring alcohol and drug testing Within four hours after using alcohol. of drivers who are required to have a commercial drivers license. The In addition. refusing to submit to an alcohol DOT rules include procedures for test and using alcohol within eight hours after urine drug testing and breath alto- an accident or until tested (for drivers required hol testing. The urine drug testing to be tested) are prohibited. procedures rule was issued in December 1989 and governs drug WHAT ALCOHOL TESTS ARE testing programs mandated by the FHWA. The 1994 amendments to REQUIRED? Part 40 add breath alcohol testing The following alcohol tests are required: procedures and additional urine specimen collection procedures that Preemployment - conducted before appli provide for split urine specimens. cants are hired or after an offer to hire. but before actually performing safety-sensitive functions for the first time. Also required WHO IS AFFECTED BY when employees transfer to a safety-sensi- THESE RULES? five (Driver) position. The FHWA rules cover saferv-sen- Post-accident - conducted after accidents sitive employees in transportation on drivers whose performance could have who drive commercial motor vehi- contributed to the accident (as determined cles requiring a CDL to operate. by a citation for a moving traffic violation) There are about 6.600.000 holders and for all fatal accidents even if the driver of CDLs. is not cited for a moving traffic violation. Examples of drivers and employers Reasonable suspicion - conducted when a that are subject to these rules are: trained supervisor or company official observes behavior or appearance that is • Federal. State, and local characteristic of alcohol misuse. ,governments • Random - conducted on a random unan- • Apiarian industry (Beekeepers) nounced basis just before. during or just • For-Hire Motor Carriers after performance of safety-sensitive 1unc- • Private Motor Carriers tions. Civic Organizations Return-to-duty and follow-up - • conducted v.-hen an individual who has • Churches violated the prohibited alcohol conduct • Indian Tribes standards returns to performing safety-sen- sitive duties. Follow-up tests are unan- • Farmers and Custom Harvesters nounced and at least 6 tests must be con- ducted in the first 12 months after a driver HAT ALCOHOL USE IS returns to duty. Follow-up testing may be PROHIBITED' extended for up to 60 months following return to duty. Because alcohol is a legal sub- stance. the rules define specific pro O�V WILL RANDOM ALCOHOL hibited alcohol-related conduct. Performance of safety-sensitiveH ESTING WORK? functions is prohibited: Random alcohol testing must he conducted • While having* a breath alcohol just before. during. or just after a driver's performance of safety-sensitive duties. The driver is randoml% results determine anv actions taken. Testim_ selected for testing (usually from a procedures that ensure accuracy. reliabilin ..pool" of drivers subject to testing). and confidentiality of test results are outlined The testing dates and times are in the Part 40 rule. These procedures include unannounced and are with unpre- training and proficiency requirements for the dictable frequency throughout the breath alcohol technicians (BAT). quality year. Each year. the number of ran- assurance plans for the breath testing devices dour tests conducted by the i including calibration requirements for a suit- employer must equal at least 25" able test locations. and protection of driver test of all the safety-sensitive drivers. records. These rules provide for adjustments to the annual random testing rate WHO DOES THE TESTING? based on the violations (alcohol tests 0.04 or greater and refusals to Employers are responsible for implementing test) in the industry subject to the and conducting the testing programs. They FHWWA regulations. The random may do this using their own employees. con- rate is set for each industry regulat- tract services. or by joining together in a con- ed by the DOT: thus. aviation ,ortium that provides services to all member employees could be tested at a rate companies. Lary enforcement officers will not different from commercial motor conduct the tests as part of roadside or other vehicle drivers. inspections. However. under certain circum- stances. post-accident tests conducted by law KCW WILL ALCOHOL enforcement personnel, will be acceptable. Anv individual ssho conducts the testing mu-' ESTING BE DONE? be trained to operate the EBT and be profi- ... The rules require breath testing cient in the breath testing procedures. using evidential breath testing (EBT) devices approved by the WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES NHTSA. The NHTSA periodically OF ALCOHOL MISUSE?publishes a list of approved devices in the Federal Register. Two Drivers who engage in prohibited alcohol con- breath tests are required to deter- duct must be immediately remo%"ed from mine if a person has a prohibited safety-sensitive functions. Driver who have alcohol concentration. A screening enga`*ed in alcohol misuse cannot return to test is conducted first. Any result safety-sensitive duties until they have been less than 0.02 alcohol concentra- evaluated by a substance abuse professional tion is considered a "negative" test. and complied with any treatment recommen- If the alcohol concentration is 0.02 dctions to assist them with an alcohol prob- or greater. a second confirmation lem. To further safeguard transportation safe- test must be conducted. The driver tv. drivers who hake anv alcohol concentration and the individual conducting the (defined as 0.02 or greater) when tested just breath test (called a breath alcohol before. during or just after performing safety- technician (BAT)) complete the sensitive functions must also be removed from alcohol testing form to ensure that performing such duties for 24 hours. If a the results are properly recorded. driver's behavior or appearance suggests alco- The confirmation test. if required. hol misuse. a reasonable suspicion alcohol te— must be conducted using an EBT must be conducted. If a breath test cannot be that prints out the results. date and administered. the driver must he removed time. a sequential test number. and from performing safety-sensitise duties for at the name and serial number of the least 2-4 hours. A violation of these employ- EBT to ensure the reliability of the er-based testing rules is not placed on. nor results. The confirmation test affects. the drivers CDL record. s FHVdA will conduct inspections or audits ol' CH OW WILL EMPLOYEES employers' programs. Additionally. selected NOW ABOUT THESE employers will have to submit annual calendar sear summary reports to the FHWA. These NEW ROLES? reports will be used to help monitor compli- Employers must provide detailed ance with and enforcement of the rules. as information about alcohol misuse. well as to provide data on the extent of alco- the employer's policy. the testing hol misuse and the need for any future pro- requirements. and how and where gram and renulatory changes. drivers can get help for alcohol abuse. Supervisors of safety-sensi- ARE DRIVER ALCOHOL TESTING tiye drivers must attend at least one hour of training on alcohol misuse RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL'. symptoms and indicators used in Yes! Driver alcohol testing records are confi- making determinations for reason- dential. Test results and other confidential able suspicion testing, information may only be released to the employer and the substance abuse profession- RE EMPLOYEES A al. Any other release of this information is 'ENTITLED TO only with the driver's consent. If a driver ini- tiates a grievance. hearing. lawsuit or other REHABILITATION? action as a result of a violation of these rules. Drivers who violate the alcohol the employer may release relevant information misuse rules will be referred to a to the decisionmaker. substance abuse professional for evaluation. Any treatment or reha- ILL FOREIGN OPERATORS HAVE bilitation would be provided in WTO COMPLY WITH THESE accordance with the employers' policy or labor/management agree- RULES? menu. The employer is not The FHWA has issued a proposed rule that required under these rules to pro- would subject foreign motor carriers to the vide rehabilitation. pay for treat- alcohol misuse rules when their drivers are ment. or reinstate the driver in operating in the United States beginning in his/her safety-sensitive position. 1996. The proposal. however. indicates that Any employer who does decide to FHWA will pursue international agreements in return a driver to safety-sensitive this area because thev would more effectively duties must ensure that the driver: satisfy the basic objectives and purposes of 1 ) has been evaluated by a sub- this rule. If such agreements stance abuse professional: 2) has _reements are in place prior to 1996. this rule would not apply to foreign complied with any recommended operators. treatment: 3) has taken a return-to- duty alcohol test (with a result less than 0.02): and 4) is subject to WILL THE DOT AUTHORIZE ANY unannounced follow-up alcohol i ALCOHOL TESTING METHODS tests. BESIDES BREATH TESTING? The alcohol testing rules authorize and require OW WILL THE FHWA only breath alcohol testing methods. 111KNOW IF THESE RULES However. the DOT has issued two other ARE BEING FOLLOWED? notices that propose to expand alcohoi testing Employers are required to keep options. A proposal w use blood alcohol test- detailed records of their alcohol �n« for reasonable suspicion and post-accident misuse pre\ention programs. The tests where breath testing is not readily a�able was w•as published in February 1994. The proposal would enable employer, arc: pre-employment: reasonable suspicion: to obtain a blood alcohol test when post-accident. random: return-to-duty: and an EBT and/or trained breath alco- follow-up. hol technician is not available for tests that may be necessary in HO«' IS DRUG TESTING DONE? remote locations or at unpredictable hours. The proposal contains quali- The DOT drug and alcohol testing procedures fications for personnel authorized rule (49 CFR Part 40) sets forth the proce- to draw a blood sample. procedures dures for drug testing in the FHNVA industries. for testing blood samples. qualifiea- Drug testing is conducted by analyzing a dri- tions for laboratories performing yer's urine specimen. The analysis is per- the blood alcohol analysis. and pro formed at laboratories certified and monitored tections and safeguards for drivers. by the Department of Health and Human The DOT has also proposed model Serices (DHHS). There are over 90 DHHS- specifications for alcohol screening certified drug testing laboratories located test devices. These proposed speci- throushout the United States. The list of fications detail precision and accu- DHHS approved laboratories is published racy requirements for disposable or monthly in the Federal Regisrer. The driver portable devices that could be used for screening tests to determine an provides a urine specimen in a location that affords privacy and the "collector' seals and alcohol 'concentration of 0.02 or labels the specimen. completes a chain of cus- greater. Potentially. these specifica- tions could be applied to saliva. todv document. and prepares,the specimen and breath or other body fluids. If a accompanying paperwork for shipment to a positive" result (0.02 or greater) is drug testing laboratory. The specimen collec- obtained on the screening test tion procedures and chain of custody ensure devices, a confirmation test would that the specimen's security. proper identinca tion and integrity are not compromised. The be required using an EBT. The Omnibus Act requires that drug testing proce- DOT hopes to issue final specifica- tions. begin approving any qualified dures for commercial motor vehicle drivers alcohol screening devices. and pro- include split specimen procedures. Each urine vide procedures for their use before specimen is subdivided into two bottles the implementation dates of the labeled as a "primary** and a "split" specimen. alcohol testing rules. Both bottles are sent to a laboratory. Only the primary specimen is opened and used for the urinalysis. The split specimen bottle remain, WHAT ABOUT DRUG sealed and is stored at the laboratory. If the TESTING? analysis of the primary specimen confirms the The drug testing rules issued by presence of illegal, controlled substances. the FHWA in November 1988, with driver has 72 hours to request the split speci- later amendments, remain in effect. men be sent to another DHHS certified labora- The FHWA's new controlled sub- ton for analysis. This split specimen proce stances and alcohol testing rule will dure essentially provides the driver with an opportunity for a "second opinion.' take effect beginning in January 1995 for all drivers of vehicles requiring a commercial driver's license employed or used by large employers. However, drug testing split samples are required to be col- lected starting on Au'_TuSt 15. 1994. The drug testis, rules cover the same drivers as the alcohol testing rules. The type, of tests required WHAT DRUGS ARE WHAT DRUG USE IS TESTED FOR? PROHIBITED? All urine specimens are analyzed The drug rules prohibit any unauthorized use for the following drugs: of the controlled substances. Illicit use of 1 ) Marijuana (THC metabolite( drugs by safety-sensitive drivers is prohibited ?) Cocaine on or off duty. The FHWA has some addition- 3) Amphetamines al rules that prohibit the use of legally pre- 4) Opiates (including heroin) scribed controlled substances (such as barbitu- 5) Phencyclidine (PCP) rates. amphetamines, morphine. etc.) by safety-sensitive drivers involved in interstate The testing is a two-stage process. commerce. Other regulations require drivers First. a screening test is performed. involved in interstate commerce to report any If it is positive for one or more of medical use of controlled substances. the drugs. then a confirmation test is performed for each identified drug using state-of-the-art gas chro HAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES matography/mass spectrometry WOF A POSITIVE DRUG TEST? (G64S( analysis. GC/MS confir- mation ensures that over-the- As with an alcohol misuse violation, a driver counter medications or preparations must be removed from safety-sensitive duty if are not reported as positive results. he/she has a positive drug test result. The removal cannot take place until the NIRO has intervie%%ed the driver and determined that the WHO REVIEWS AND positive drug test resulted from the unautho- INTERPRETS THE rized use of a controlled substance. A driver LABORATORY RESULTS? cannot be returned to safety-sensitive duties until he/she has been evaluated by a substance All drug test results are reviewed abuse professional or MRO. has complied and interpreted by a physician with recommended rehabilitation. and has a (Medical Review Officer (MRO)) negative result on a return-to-dutv drug test. before they are reported to the Follow-up testing to monitor the driver's con- emplover. If the laboratory reports tinued abstinence from drug use may be a positive result to the MRO. the required. MRO contacts the driver (in person or by telephone) and conducts an interview to determine if there is an OW DOES RANDOM DRUG alternative medical explanation for ESTING WORK? the drugs found in the driver's urine specimen. For all the drugs except Employers are responsible for conducting ran- specimen PCP, there are some limited. legiti- dom. unannounced drug tests. The total num- mate medical uses that may explain ber conducted each year must equal at least S09c of the safety-sensitive drivers. Some dri the pdsitive test result. If the driver - provides appropriate documentation vers may be tested more than once each year: and the MRO determines that it is some may not be tested at all depending on legitimate medical use of the the random selection. Random testing for prohibited drug, the drug test result drugs does not have to be conducted in imme- is reported as negative to the diate time proximity to performing safetv-sen- employer. sitive functions. Once notified of selection for testing. however. a driver must proceed to a collection site to accomplish the urine speci- men collection. The FHWA has issued a pro- posal to permit adjustment to the random druLI testing rate. The proposal is siniilar to what is required for random HERE CAN I GET MORE alcohol testin<_. The random druiz INFORMATION? testing rate would be determined annually based upon the random ACCESS TO THE FHWA positive rate for the FH% ELECTRONIC BULLETIN <'.� BOARD SERVICE (FEBBS) industrs. Copies of the rules published bs the Office of RE Ei\IPLOYEE the Secretary of Transportation and the FHWA DUCATION AND may be obtained from the FH1VA's Electronic Bulletin Board Service (FEBBS) using an TRAINING REQUIRED? IBM-compatible microcomputer and modem. Employers must provide informa- The FEBBS is a read-only facility. The tion on drug use and treatment FEBBS is an informal means to exchange resources to safety-sensitise dri- information among FHWA employees and vers. All supervisors and officials with the public. The information on FEBBS of businesses with safets-sensitive is divided into Conferences and is reached bs drivers must attend at least one selecting <C>onferences from the FEBBS hour of training on the signs and main menu- and then selecting the letter of the svmptoms of drug abuse. This Conference you want to see. There are also training is necessary to assist super- general information Conferences on areas visors and company officials in such as Local Area Networks and Electronic making appropriate determinations Data Sharing. for reasonable suspicion testing. The telephone number for FEBBS is Area ARE DRIVER DRUG Code 202-366-3764. This telephone number TESTING RECORDS supports 300. 1200. and 2400 baud line CONFIDENTIAL? speeds. For users with 9600 baud line speed capability. use 202-366-3175. A variety of Yes! Driver drug testing results terminal types and protocols are supported by and records are maintained under the system. However. setting the modem for strict confidentiality by the 2400 baud for 9600 baud). S data bits. full employer. the drug testing labor- duplex. and no parity will give optimal perfor- atory. and the medical reyie\s mance. The service is operational from officer. Thee cannot be released to 4:00 AM to 2:00 AM Eastern time. seven others without the written consent days a week. of the driver. Exceptions to these confidential in• provisions are limited to a decisionmaker in arbi- If you need more information on how to tration. litigation or administrative access FEBBS. contact one of the offices list- proceedings arising from a positive ed below or FHWA Computer Help Desk. drug test. Statistical records and HMS-40. room 4401. 400 Seventh Street. reports are maintained b\ S.W.. Washington. DC 20590. 202-366-1120. employers and drug testing labora- tories. This information is aggre- gated data and is used to monitor compliance with the rules and to assess the effectiveness of the drug testin= programs. t3 MEMORANDUM Human Resources Division Date: January 6, 1995 To: Operations Committee From: Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager Subject: Federal Drug and Alcohol Testing Compliance Please accept this as the cover memo for submission of a new contract to the Operations Committee for approval to comply with the new Federal drug and alcohol testing requirement applicable to all city employees holding a commercial drivers license. The new law becomes effective 1-1-95 for the City of Kent. A good brief explanation of the law, it's independent testing firm requirements, as well as who and how the requirements are to be complied with can best be summarized in the attached notice that was sent to each employee subject to this new regulation. Our covered group under this new law as of 1-1-95 includes 79 identified employees. We have already completed an RFP and selected Maschhoff Barr and Associates as the Cities Employee Assistance Provider(EAP). We have selected Valley Occupational health Services to serve as the collector for drug screens and for alcohol testing. Services through this source will include all the required tests and procedures as outlined on page 2 of their proposal under "Costs for Services". This will also remove the City from legal as well as perception problems in the required Random Sample process. The Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) medical doctor will also always be an independent physician with hospital privileges at Valley Hospital, but will never be a staff physician so as to further remove all conflict of interest issues for the City as well as Valley Occupational. This is not a contract as such, but a proposal to provide specific services to be performed as required under the federal DOT regulations. Valley currently provides very similar testing now for the City under the Bloodborne Pathogens and TB regulations required by OSHA and WISHA. Valley provides these services equally out of their Renton (adjacent to Valley Hospital) and Auburn (37th Street NW) one located on the immediate North and the other on the South side of Kent. Our employees can reach either with a minimum of time away from normal duties. So far the next closest provider is Virginia Mason through their Tukwila or Federal Way clinics. Kent Medical and Auburn Hospital have not equipped or staffed for these services. I recommend that the Committee approve this proposal to meet the federal drug and alcohol testing requirement applicable to all City employees holding a commercial drivers license. PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES SERVICES I. CITY OF KENT has requested OHS to do Collection and testing for the use of alcohol and specified illegal drugs; NIDA Drug Profile which includes Amphetamines, Cocaine, Marijuana, Opiates and Phencyclidine including a medical review process to analyze positive and negative test results. Attached is a copy of the Consent Form that each applicant/employee must sign before OHS can collect any specimens. Results from testing will be reported as positive"or negative" to Ken Chatwin by phone and in writing on the attached Medical Review Report form. 2. Supervisory Alcohol and Controlled Substance Training - Management and first- line supervisors must have a minimum of one hour of training on alcohol and one hour of training on controlled substances to meet the DOT requirements. However, it is recommended that the training sessions be three hours in length. The additional hour provides sufficient time so each of the following subjects can be covered in greater depth than allowed in a two hour session. This makes the training more meaningful. It is recommended that the number of supervisors in each workshop not exceed 25. The training will include: Drug identification and how the various drugs, including alcohol, affect the body and work performance. The key performance indicators frequently associated with alcohol misuse and controlled substances use. Employee's habits or traits that may indicate alcohol or other drug use in the workplace. Controlled Substances - identification, short and long term effects and their effect on work performance. The correct procedure to follow when an employee has a work performance problem and is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. (Referral for an alcohol and other drug test.) The correct procedure to follow in documenting alcohol and other drug related work performance problems. How supervisors can utilize an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as an additional management tool to drug testing. 3. Employee Education - The DOT does not require classroom instruction, but does require a number of items of information be given to each employee. The required information is set forth in 49 CFR 382.601. It is recommended that each safety-sensitive employee be given one hour of instruction along with handing out the required information. The class size is limited only by room capacity. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES CITY OF KENT PROPOSAL 11/30/94 If the one hour employee training sessions are authorized, each session will include: Effects of alcohol and other drugs on work performance. Discussion of the DOT regulations and possible consequences for violating the regulations. Alcohol and controlled substances testing procedures. Employee assistance. Questions and answers. COSTS FOR SERVICES Prices are subject to periodic adjustment. NIDA Drug Screen $41.00 Medical Review Officer Services $22.00 Breath Alcohol Test $35.00 Retest (Confirmation) $60.00 Legal Blood Alcohol Test (at emergency room) $135.00 Random Selection Services: Set up charge $50.00 plus $2.00/employee Monthly Charge $55.00 Substance Abuse Professional (SAP)(M.D.) $150.00/hour Supervisory Training . 2 hour session $350.00 2-two hour sessions back-to-back $500.00 . 3 hour session $450.00 2-three hour sessions back-to-back $800.00 Alcohol and other drug handout materials supplied to each supervisor $ 1.50/each Emplovee Education Single session $250.00 Two sessions within 3 hour period $400.00 Three sessions within 4 hour period $450.00 Employee educational materials with classroom training $ 1.50/each Employee educational materials without classroom training $ 2.50/each CITY OF KENT designate responsible for receipt of bills and medical information. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES CITY OF KENT PROPOSAL 11/30/94 All invoices for services will be sent to Ken Chatwin and are due and payable within 30 days. As you have requested, all medical examination or drug and alcohol testing results done by OHS will be sent to Ken Chatwin, City of Kent. Jody . Mah ey Ken Chatwin Acco nts M ager City of Kent Occupational Health Services OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES CITY OF KENT PROPOSAL 11/30/94 Occupational Open.of Valley Medical Centees Auburn Clinic is Now Now Serving South King Our services include: County from Two Immediate injury and illness Convenient Locations! treatment care,24-hours per day Valley Medical Center's Occupational Pre-placement and other Health Services now offers employers Physical Exams comprehensive services from clinics Full Drug Testing Services in Renton and Auburn. Case Management Our expertise helps emplovers lower Same-day Communication injury-related costs,increase produc Customised Programs tivity,enhance regulatory compliance. Mork site Programs and promote early, appropriate return Comprehensive Service Capabilities to-work. T To Stop By and See What N Seattle We Have to Offer 5; Visit our open house December 8th from i ON Burien RENT = 3 to 5 pm at our new Auburn location. >; - dos To Bellevue You'll tour the facilities,meet our s1a staff and learn more about how our services can help you control costs 181 and keep empiovees heachier and more productive. 5'.��3re4 S ^St occupational valley For further information,contact Health Services: Medical s lawn ,o,,:1aaeS Renton center Accounts Manager Jody Mahoney at 727-2438. s � 99 KEN( yp A 161 !1 i ill 1� ties Moines5IM, 167 Your Comp(inys Heallb is Our Busbies,•- Federal Renfon Auburn Way AUBURN220 SW d3rd Street 3702 SV Valley Hwy N. 1N Renton. WA 98055 Aucum. WA 98001 Clinic 206 656.5020 Clinic 206 656-5325 ToTo Hours:Monday-Friday, Hours:Monday-Friday, Tacomauyallup 6 am-6 pm 7 am-5 pm .- Valley Medical Center rub Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WORKER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM HANDLING CONTRACT �Pp 1 o vC C 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Th4s---s , renewal of � third party claims administration contract with Scott-Wetzel for 1/1/95 to 1/1/96. Quarterly deposits for 1995 are down because claims are down, medical-only handling claims cost are increasing from $85 to $90 per claim, loss time handling cost5are increasing from $395 to $435 per claim, all within reason.'i`-''IClaim reduc- tion trend can be contributed to safety awards and improving employee attitudes. 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of contract, letter from Scott-Wetzel dated 11/3/94 confirming a significant reduction in both medical and loss time (indemnity) claims, and copy of submission cover memo to the Operations Committee 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $21 800 payable quarterly SOURCE OF FUNDS: Budgeted at $31 000 in the worker' s compensa- tion trust fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I MEMORANDUM Human Resources Division Date: January 6, 1995 To: Operations Committee From: Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager Subject: Workers Compensation Claim Handling Renewal Contract Please schedule this contract renewal for approval at the next Operations Committee meeting. This is the renewal of our Third Party Claims Administrator contract with Scott-Wetzel Services Inc. Our expiring contract was an 18 month contract and was done so in July 1993 to get us to a fiscal year basis for renewal. Our quarterly deposit under that contract was $6,662.50, but thanks to a drop in both frequency and time loss claims our 1994 projections have been decreased to $5,450 quarterly deposits. The cost of handling indemnity (time loss) claims have increased for$395 in July 1993 to $435 for January 1, 1995. Our medical only claim cost in July 1993 was $85 and on January 1, 1995, it will increase to $90. There was an administrative fee of$3,000 under the 18 month contract which is really the same under this 12 month contract at $2,000. I can contribute the claim frequency reduction which occurred in 1994 to the Safety Awards Program and a more positive employee attitude, which I contribute to the new Administration. . The contract verbiage requested by our City Attorney has been incorporated into this contract. I recommend the Committee approve the renewal of the Third Party Claims Administrator contract with Scott-Wetzel Services Inc. SERVICES , INC. Risk Management Planning and Support Ul! 'i ,, o� 1994 November 3 , 1994 Mr . Ken Chatwin Risk Safety Analyst City of Kent 220 South 4th Avenue Kent , Washington 98032 RE : 1995 Agreement Renewal Dear Ken : It is time to take a look at your workers ' compensation program and get a new agreement in place for the coming year . From preliminary reviews , you have made impressive improvement in the numbers . It appears that the City of Kent can expect half as many time loss claims in ' 94 as was experienced in ' 93 . The overall claim volume is expected to be reduced by nearly 30 claims with the time loss to medical only ratio dropping from 37% to 26%--a very significant reduction . The savings that are achieved by reducing medical bills to the fee schedule amounted to nearly $19 , 000 for a 20 . 39% reduction . While this is significant, the real savings are generated by reducing the number and severity of injuries being reported . For renewal , SWS proposes a Minimum and Deposit of $21 , 800 . The minimum includes an administration fee of $2 , 000 and 90 hours of safety and loss control services at $90 per hour . The balance of the deposit will be audited at a rate of $435 per time loss claim and $90 per medical only . If comparing to the previous contract , be reminded that the last agreement was for a term of 18 months ; this agreement is for 12 months . (Continued) 33801 1st Way South • Suite 351 • Federal Way, Washington 98003-6218 Phone: (206) 661-0272 • Fax: (206) 661-7098 Page Two Letter to Mr. Ken Chatwin November 3 , 1994 Please give me a call after you have had an opportunity to look over the numbers and I will have the contracts produced for deliv- ery. Sincerely yours , Anne Milam Account Executive Enclosure AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 3rd day of March 1995, by and between Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., a Washington Corporation with its principal place of business at 101 E. Kennedy Blvd Suite 2980 Tampa,FL 33602 hereinafter referred to as "SWS") and City of Kent with its principal place of business at 220 4th Avenue South,Kent,Washington 98031 (hereinafter referred to as "Client"): WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Client maintains a self-insured plan to cover its workers' compensation liabilities in the State of Washington; and SWS has agreed to perform certain services in connection therewith, as herein set forth: NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing January 1,1995 and ending December 31, 1995. The Agreement may be terminated by either party giving not less than sixty (60) days written notice to the other party except for non-payment of fees or change in jurisdictional or other administrative regulations affecting this Agreement. 2. During the period of this Agreement, SWS shall represent and act for Client in matters pertaining to the liability of Client for claims based on events which occur during the term of this Agreement under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Washington. During the term hereof,SWS shall devote its best efforts in the conduct of its duties hereunder. Such duties shall be the following: (a) Receive notice of and create files on each claim reported and maintain - these files for Client. (b) Investigate all claims as required to determine their validity and compensability. (c) Determine proper benefits due on compensable cases. (d) Make timely payment of benefits due, in accord with payment proce- dures as established from funds provided by Client. Client will be wholly responsible for providing such funds as may be required for these payments. -1- (e) Prepare documentation and defenses of cases considered noncompen- sable and assist selected legal counsel in preparation of cases for hearings, appeals, and/or trial. (f) Maintain and provide Client pertinent data on all claim payments. (g) Provide monthly and/or quarterly computerized loss reports in a tailored format, as mutually agreed at inception of the program, showing descriptive data, details of each month's payments, total payments, reserves and total experience for each claim. Data reporting services, in accordance with this Agreement, are limited to the reporting format, content and number of copies specified in Addendum One. Subsequent expansion and/or modification of services including changes in report distribution, at the option of SWS, may be subject to additional charges. (h) Provide excess insurers such reports as they may reasonably require within specific excess coverage reporting requirements. (i) Provide information and assistance as may be reasonably required for preparation and filing of all reports required by any state agency in connection with Client's approved self-insured status. (j) File with the appropriate State Administrative Departments such information as is required on each claim. (k) Provide loss control services, defined as loss control, consultations, and surveys as mutually agreed. (1) To provide services as outlined in the SWS Client Service Procedures. 3. In consideration of the services to be performed by SWS hereunder, Client shall pay to SWS: (a) An annual minimum and deposit fee of Twenty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($21,800), payable quarterly in advance. The first payment will be due within twenty (20) days of commencement of this Agreement, and subsequent payments will be due within twenty (20) days of the beginning of each quarter thereafter. -2- (b) The minimum fee will be subject to adjustment by performance of claim count audits on the basis of SWS claim data and application of the following per claimant fees: Ninety Dollars ($90) for each workers' compensation medical only; Four Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($435) for each workers' compensation indemnity. An administrative fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), and a fee of Eight Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($8,100) for loss control services, will be included in each fee adjustment calculation. (c) SWS has agreed to make available up to Ninety (90) hours of loss control services during the contract term, payment for which is included in the fee stated in Section three (3) articles (a) and (b). Additional loss control will be available at the rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100) per hour. (d) Additional services requested by Client will be compensated at such fee and payment terms as mutually agreed by both parties. (e) Invoices not paid on a timely basis will be surcharged a finance fee of 18% annual interest rate. In the event Client fees are not paid within sixty (60) days of the date of invoice,SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option, after ten (10) days written notice to Client. 4. Audit adjustments will be submitted at the end of the annual term and quarterly thereafter based upon the cumulative claim count as contained in the computer reports required by section 2 (g) of the Agreement. A final adjustment of fee will be made as of eighteen months following the end of the contract term. Any claims occurring during the term of this Agreement which are reported more than eighteen (18) months following the end of the contract term will be subject to additional fees for administration to be agreed upon by the parties. 5. SWS will Indemnify and Hold Harmless Client from any and all loss, cost, fines, assessments, penalties or other expense to which CIient may be -3- subjected solely as a consequence of the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of SWS and/or its employees in connection with fulfilling its obligation under this Agreement. IJ l 'Willfa/ M15ZCN4,,e/vR SrT it cf 117E 6. Client will Indemnify and d Harmless SWS from any I all loss, cost, fines, assessments, penal ' s incurred by SWS and/or its employees as a result of the Client and/or its employees 11✓.eoNyE I_1aN jWiA u/li'd.,vf ;Ifcdlpb� ,V Nvd�,r t/iil 65�6Fiydti 7. Client agrees: / / (a) To pay to SWS the fees provided for hereunder. (b) To pay all allocated loss expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SWS. Allocated loss expense is defined as all attorney's fees, court and/or hearing costs, Austin Commission representation, costs of depositions, documents and exhibits, witness and expert fees, medical and engineering appraisal, surveillance, independent adjusting, photography and other incidental and special costs incurred to evaluate compensability of claims. (c) To pay any sales or use taxes or other taxes or government assess- ments or duties relating to this Agreement or to payments or services to be rendered under this Agreement in addition to all other payments set forth in this Agreement. If SWS makes payment of any such taxes or government assessments or duties,Client shall promptly reimburse SWS. This Paragraph does not apply to federal or state taxes based upon net income which are imposed on SWS. (d) To pay all loss control expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to the fees to be paid to SWS. Loss control expense is defined as extraordinary travel costs, such as air or other common carrier fare, overnight meals and lodging; requested training materials; safety promotional materials; associated shipping and handling; and other incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of loss control services. (e) To be solely responsible to provide to SWS all funds for the payment of claims and allocated loss expense. -4- (f) To advise SWS on a timely basis of all pertinent excess insurance reporting requirements and/or reporting modifications for all annual periods for which claim administration services are provided. (g) This Agreement is entered into with the understanding that existing Federal,State, or other jurisdictional regulations will remain in effect for the duration of this Agreement. Client agrees that should administrative or other costs of service provided hereunder be substantially increased as a result of modi- fications in existing law, enactment of new legislation, or promul- gation of new administrative guidelines, SWS service fees may be renegotiated during the Agreement term. If revised fee agreements cannot be reached, SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option,after thirty (30) days written notice to Client. 8. All claims and related files generated by SWS as a result of its activity under this Agreement shall remain at all times the property of Client with the exception of any supporting data required by SWS to make such accountings to Client or excess insurers as are required in this Agreement. SWS will retain claim files for one year following date of closure. Thereafter, files will be returned to Client or forwarded to such location as may be designated for continued storage. Upon SWS' request, closed claim files will be returned for additional administration as may be required. In the event of termination or non-renewal of SWS services, and assumption of continuing administration of claims by Client, SWS will transfer all open and retained closed claim files to Client, or its designee, as of the effective date of termination. 9. SWS is retained by Client only for the purposes and to the extent set forth in this Agreement, and its relationship to Client shall be that of an independent contractor. 10. Client agrees during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1) year following its termination it will not employ any person employed by SWS during the term of this Agreement without the prior written consent of SWS. -5- 11. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if given in writing and by registered or certified mail to Client or to SWS at the addresses first set forth above or to any other address of which written notice of change is given. 12. The waiver by SWS or Client of the' breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter enforcing any such provision. 13. This Agreement is for the period provided for in Section 1. Any continuation or renewal of this Agreement shall be the subject of further negotiation between the parties. Upon termination of this Agreement, in whole or in part, in accordance with Section 1, and/or non-renewal, in entirety or of any major operating subsidiary, entity or portion thereof, Client shall have the option to: (a) Assume all open claims pending for the terminated or non-renewed portion of the program, as of the effective date of termination or non- renewal, provided, however, that SWS shall be entitled to receive its full fee for all claims entered into its data files prior to the effective date of termination or non-renewal; or (b) Upon agreement, by both parties, of a rate of compensation, require SWS to continue administration, to conclusion, all open claims associated with that portion of the program terminated or non- renewed. Such rate of compensation shall thereafter be reviewed by the parties on an annual basis and shall be the subject of mutual agreement between the parties. Adequate funds shall continue to be made available to SWS by Client for the payment of claims and allocated loss expense until all claims are liquidated. 14. The obligation of SWS to perform its duties hereunder is conditioned upon Client's cooperation with SWS with respect to the activities of SWS including, but not limited to, responding to SWS' requests for information promptly; meeting with SWS and/or third parties, as may be needed;making decisions on matters which, in the professional opinion of SWS, should be made by Client; providing excess carrier reporting requirements; the payment of funds into the Account referred to in Section 7; and performance by Client of all other obligations of this Agreement. -6- 15. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. This provision shall not prohibit SWS from subcontracting for any of the activities to be performed by SWS without any requirement of obtaining the approval of Client provided, however, that any such assignment or subcon- tracting shall not relieve SWS of its obligations to Client under this Agree- ment. 16. Client shall not disclose any terms or conditions of this Agreement relating to prices or fees to any third party or transfer a copy of this Agreement or disclose the contents thereof to any third party. 17. Any unresolved dispute between Client and SWS which may arise from the obligations of either party as set forth herein,will be resolved by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be binding upon Client and SWS. Each party will select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot agree within thirty (30) days, either may request that selection be made by a judge of a court having competent jurisdiction. Each party will pay the expenses it incurs and bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally. The laws of the State of Washington will apply. 18. This Agreement sets forth all of the terms, conditions, and agreements of the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all such former agreements which are hereby declared terminated and of no further force and effect upon the execution and delivery hereof. There are no terms, conditions, or agreements with respect thereto, except as herein provided and no amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless reduced to writing and executed by the parties. All terms, conditions, _7_ - definitions as set forth in the Agreement will be interpreted under the laws of the State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate counterparts as of the date first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF KENT By Date Signed Title T: SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC. By Date Signed Z / Title -8- Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17. 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SAFETY AWARDS PROGRAM EXPANSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to increase the currently .i ' . approved and active safety awards program -fl-}�-----t-��---� T�saw.e— S-94 __— thru—j a 19D5- from 200 employees to 600 (all benefitted employees) . AXT he pilot program has produced and can take credit for part of our reduced workers compensation claims, it has substantially increased employee interest in safety, it is time to expand same City-wide, and it has and should continue paying itis own way in claim cost reduction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Scott-Wetzel dated 11/3/94 confirming the substantial claim frequency reduction and a copy of the summary presented to the Operations Committee 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2 768 (an increase from $1. 650 from Jan thru June then $2 768 from July thru Dec. 1995 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Workers Compensation trust funds as claim prevention costs 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J MEMORANDUM Human Resources Division Date: January 6, 1995 To: Operations Committee From: Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager Subject: Expansion of Safety Awards Program Please accept this cover memo to the Operations Committee for approval of expansion of the Safety Awards Program. The first attachment supporting expansion of this program is a letter dated November 3, 1994 from Scott Wetzel confirming a substantial drop in both loss time and medical only workers compensation injuries in 1994. The Safety Awards Program currently is in effect for 200 employees working in Public Works Operations, Engineering, Parks Maintenance and Golf Maintenance. I credit the Safety Award Program and Administration for more positive employee attitude for this decrease. The second attachment is a letter from the writer to the Bureau of Business Practices for cost estimates to expand this program. The City of Kent, based on my proposal to the same Committee, started the Safety Awards Program on a trial basis for 200 employees effective July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, at a monthly cost of$1,650.23. Included with our original package was library of 16 selected safety films with training materials, workbooks, and self test sheets. The safety films have been very useful and they were a "one time only cost". We can expand this program, add 400 more employees to the Safety Awards Program and extend the program through December 31, 1995 for a monthly cost of$2,768. ($1,118 increase) Another way to analyze the cost is on a per person basis. For 200 employees we agreed to pay ($18,950) or$1,650 per month for 12 months or $7.89 per employee per month. We can add 400 more employee and the total cost per person drops down to $3.38 per employee per month. The monthly awards are 12 per month for the 200 employees, but this will go up to 21 awards per month for 600 employees, but we are adding a monthly award of$100. The highest award has been$75. One of the cost reducing factors is that the awards ratio per person is not as high, considering 21 awards per month is 252 awards over 12 months for 600 employees. The other reduction factor is the elimination of the 'one time only cost items" which we have already purchased and received. The cost of this program has been paid through the Workers Compensation Claim Trust Fund as a claim prevention expense and if 20%to 25% of our reduction in 1994 loss time and medical claims can be contributed to the Safety Awards Program,then it has paid for itself Budget impact will be nil as it will continue to be handled a claim reduction expense through the Workers Compensation Trust Fund. I would ask for Committee approval to expand the Safety Awards Program to all City employees with costs to be paid from the Workers Compensation Claim Trust Fund as a claim prevention expense. SERVICES , INC. Risk Management Planning and Support r 1994 ` �JEAr November 3 , 1994 Mr . Ken Chatwin Risk Safety Analyst City of Kent 220 South 4th Avenue Kent , Washington 98032 RE : 1995 Agreement Renewal Dear Ken : It is time to take a look at your workers ' compensation program and get a new agreement in place for the coming year . From preliminary reviews , you have made impressive improvement in the numbers . It appears that the City of Kent can expect half as many time loss claims in ' 94 as was experienced in ' 93 . The overall claim volume is expected to be reduced by nearly 30 claims with the time loss to medical only ratio dropping from 37% to 26%--a very significant reduction . The savings that are achieved by reducing medical bills to the fee schedule amounted to nearly $19 , 000 for a 20 . 39% reduction . While this is significant , the real savings are generated by reducing the number and severity of injuries being reported . For renewal , SWS proposes a Minimum and Deposit of $21 , 800 . The minimum includes an administration fee of $2 , 000 and 90 hours of safety and loss control services at $ 90 per hour . The balance of the deposit will be audited at a rate of $435 per time loss claim and $90 per medical only . If comparing to the previous contract , be reminded that the last agreement was for a term of 18 months ; this agreement is for 12 months . (Continued) 33801 1st Way South • Suite 351 • Federal Way, Washington 98003.6218 Page Two Letter to Mr. Ken Chatwin November 3 , 1994 Please give me a call after you have had an opportunity to look over the numbers and I will have the contracts produced for deliv- ery . Sincerely yours , Anne Milam Account Executive Enclosure Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ASPHALT OVERLAY INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:. As recommended by the Public Works ommittee# n4tFdCUpon tie City_ Att eorn 's review and abproval,) 14uthorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter- Agency Agreement with King County.F The City has an opportunity to include City overlay work in the County's 1995 Countywide Overlay Program. The County has pre- pared an agreement to include the portion of Kent Kangley Road within the Clark Springs watershed property. This portion of the road has been annexed to the City and is approximately 1 mile long. King County estimated the total cost to the City at $71, 800. $65,000 has been budgeted therefor. The County will be funding the overlay work on both ends of this parti- cular segment. The actual cost is anticipated to be within the $65, 000 budgeted. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director Memorandum and Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence from Councilman 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 January 9, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstromo RE: Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County The City has the opportunity to include City overlay work in the County's 1995 Countywide Overlay Program. Due to the magnitude of the County project, bid prices are minimized, thereby resulting in a cost savings to local agencies which elect to participate. The County has prepared an agreement to include the portion of Kent Kangley Road within the Clark Springs property. This portion of the road has been annexed to the City and is approximately 1 mile in length. The County will be funding the portion on both ends of this particular segment. King County estimated the total cost to the City at $71,800. $65,000 has been budgeted therefor. The County Project Engineer noted that based on the historic record, the County estimates are approximately 10% high. Therefore, it is anticipated that the final cost to the City will be within the $65,000 budget. The Agreement also provides an exclusionary clause. Following the bid opening, the County will provide a bid tabulation to the City. We may elect not to proceed in the event costs exceed the budget. Based on City estimates, total costs for the City to contract for the work separately will exceed $65,000 due to higher unit prices and the addition on design costs (not charged by the County for joint project). ACTION: Upon the City Attorney's review and approval, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County. Further discussion followed relating to competitive business and service needs in different locations, and whether or not this is something that is in fact, not an exclusive service. Clark stated that it doesn't fit the definition of a telephone company - however, Brubaker stated that the exclusive monopoly aspect is not part of the statutory definition. It was the Committee's recommendation that Brubaker reconstruct this franchise agreement as was discussed and present it again at the next Public Works Committee meeting (January 23rd). Asphalt Overt Inter-AgencyAgreement/King County Wickstrom explained that Clark Springs, is 13 miles east; (Kent Kangley goes thru there for approximately 1 mile) - several years back our attorneys told us that it was our road. This road needs an overlay and the County is doing both the east end and the west end in their project and they want us to do our portion -we budgeted money however their cost estimate is above what we had anticipated. The County has estimated high and hopefully, with good bids we will be within our budget plus it gives us the option to drop out if after the bids open, we determine we don't have enough money. Wickstrom said we are asking for the Mayor to sign the Agreement for this. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County, upon the City Attorney's review and approval. Carnaby Street Sidewalks - Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this is a completed construction project and it is before the Committee because the actual cost ran slightly over 10% of the original bid amount primarily due to more extensive restoration of the properties than was anticipated. Wickstrom stated that there isn't any problem with funding - there are adequate funds in the overall project fund. Mann noted that the following items for acceptance are all over budget. Wickstrom explained that if a project is over 10%, they are presented to Committee for approval which has become a "rule of thumb" on project acceptances - under 10% they go directly to Council. He also noted that all of the projects have adequate funding. Committee unanimously recommended that the Carnaby Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CARNABY STREET SIDEWALKS 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: A ecommended by the Public Works Committee, (uthorization to a co the contract with Mer-Con Inc. for the Carnaby Street Sidewalks oject, and release of retainage after receipt of State releases. The original contract was $36,290. 00. The final construction cost was $43 ,740. 92, the overage being due to additional landscaping required. Adequate funds within the sidewalk fund exist to cover this overage. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence from Councilman 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. 3L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JANUARY 9, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom-00 RE: Carnaby Street Sidewalks Accept as Complete This project consisted of the construction of sidewalks easterly of the Star Lake Elementary School driveway along S. 270th Street, Downing-Avenue and Carnaby Street. The contract was awarded to Mer-Con, Inc. for the bid amount of$36,290.00. The final construction cost was $43,740.92. This contract exceeded the bid amount due to additional landscaping required to re- establish property to an acceptable condition for the property owners. Adequate funds within the sidewalk fund exist to cover the overage. ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. iT rWAS INGTON 2ajrHCT `��':,•.' Z NATIONAL Cr rq GUA11U Alt:. OltY ET = T St iJNttA SUNNYCR[fT 2" in w IC [LEMENTARY J I'A101 E SCHOOLra 247 N �„ - 24 ET 24STH ST , ' BEN, anitary Landfill W W. 516 5T < I Colony l b 250TH ST 0 Golf Cc _ o c 0 C w 251 TST E2 1ST ST w n ST �' rL S 252N 3 252N0 3 252ND .t 3 ,y ST t.►L ST ; S 2S�D . h < r J2N to E 252ND0. h F w + f \ S 253RD ST S Z Ata V 3q0 w S3RD PL 253RD ^37 n 3 Z T • w h n f TN 7� v S� S 2S4 ET o 1 525 sr » 34 Y h w 3 � W N 4 ptr h © �= d 2s6TH ST J zsSTH sr ,p 52S57H , r� p v = w � 22 f S6 iT E ST to 3256 N S CT < 27 26 W 57 szsr a 2 w < T PL w F h LAI s 2� 2 s T6oTH z .• re r � ' • fib•: ST ~ < �t I''• to Kk: t 4v 261ST ..•Vt I-AUK K 3 tfli v. T E t•A I( 262NO ST s u �•; ' •' T t • i S Q R 262 lie M ry i.'t• s 1� tr 1 S 263M ST B De`c > V = w • Q Laut.ch < � � 1 R l!1 Eqr CT 264 i 265 ST TF� N� ylly1� EgsfT CT RES. RAT �� 4 H4AP7U1, y ®FIRE < A .CT p hAMpTpN WAY C7 ;<<e Shops �:%,, } G PROJECT LOCATION y Nt "N AYE �� r �JRTM1. N -.PAFt%� ? t!� K SCHOOL �� j • TERpURY < t s 6iTH�` sT LN r r ! LAKE CARNAiY C MEY [L[M w i 2 a 26 TH A E 2 TN iCHOOL w 3T r ST i K «w is i 27M w ET STA < w ft 28 27 x 26 0 2 a : E 272ND 5 34 TwA m •MTARY J s 274TH 5 2T6TM < A- 0 « n s STAR LAKE RO Further discussion followed relating to competitive business and service needs in different locations, and whether or not this is something that is in fact, not an exclusive service. Clark stated that it doesn't fit the definition of a telephone company - however, Brubaker stated that the exclusive monopoly aspect is not part of the statutory definition. It was the Committee's recommendation that Brubaker reconstruct this franchise agreement as was discussed and present it again at the next Public Works Committee meeting (January 23rd). Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement/King County Wickstrom explained that Clark Springs, is 13 miles east; (Kent Kangley goes thru there for approximately 1 mile) - several years back our attorneys told us that it was our road. This road needs an overlay and the County is doing both the east end and the west end in their project and they want us to do our portion -we budgeted money however their cost estimate is above what we had anticipated. The County has estimated high and hopefully, with good bids we will be within our budget plus it gives us the option to drop out if after the bids open, we determine we don't have enough money. Wickstrom said we are asking for the Mayor to sign the Agreement for this. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County, upon the City Attorney's review and approval. (� Carnaby Street Sidewalks -Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this is a completed construction project and it is before the Committee because the actual cost ran slightly over 10% of the original bid amount primarily due to more extensive restoration of the properties than was anticipated. Wickstrom stated that there isn't any problem with funding - there are adequate funds in the overall project fund. Mann noted that the following items for acceptance are all over budget. Wickstrom explained that if a project is over 10%, they are presented to Committee for approval which has become a "rule of thumb" on project acceptances - under 10% they go directly to Council. He also noted that all of the projects have adequate funding. Committee unanimously recommended that the Carnaby Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DERBYSHIRE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 2 . SUMMARY ST MENT: As recommended by the Public Works committee, thorizat"ion to accept as complete the contract with Archet Construction, Inc. for the Derbyshire Water Main Replacement projpCt and release of retainage after receipt of State releases.✓ The original contract was $258, 340.21. The final construction cost was $283,517.70, the overage being due to poor quality of the existing asphalt pavement and the necessity to use more select backfill material. Adequate funds within the project fund exist to cover the overage. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence from Councilman 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. 3M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JANUARY 9, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom Dvv RE: Derbyshire Watermain Replacement Accept as Complete This project consisted of the replacement of existing watermains in the Derbyshire area along with various related appurtenances. The contract was awarded to Archer Construction, Inc. for the bid amount of $258,340.21. The final construction cost was $283,517.70. This contract exceeded the bid amount due to the poor quality of the existing asphalt pavement. Further, the existing trench material was not adequate to use as backfill requiring the use of more select backfill material than originally estimated. Adequate funds within the project fund exist to cover the overage. ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. sL is s x SE 251 ST .• SE 21 s' W 2"T r ST(Pvt) r W R N 6E 232ND 47 :{ND ST SE 232ND PLW +[ 2 ® W = W Water to r w [Ey' = &,, ervor > t SE 234TH °r W 1 > 5j ~ W ?C ... a P a m > • = h 1 N _ N w ; k SE 1 21 22 ST 28 2� _ 29 28 zs / W Sp Za7 �' SE 257T� s E 57th 6T s 7kKENT SCHOOL STRICI ST aaT" S q ADMINISTRATION LDG. SE 29eTH 9E 2 SE 238TH m 2Ae • ^ 4 9 2. r `m Sv SE 299TH . kE'A'T` SE 39TH SE 26MT ST S Q1� PL N� R SE 260Pi TH 'O(�, i TH ` ST BE 261S'T �•I4D � ST Y ti �L SEQUOIA 6``"Q.. "• l ') JR.HI. SCHOOLt ?� SE 0 p Alhle!ic Field 5E 264TH ST •SE 26.Sp0 SE 26a TH Si s 516 a 6 W Malt 4 N W }C SE 263TH W '^ • Wats SE 2 TN PL < > -these ST x w ... • O � e W SE 267TH N L'r m W w ST Wr 266TH N sE 268TH P.. ST N x N 2691H ST e�S9r W PROJECT LOCATION �> F SE 270TH q1T ST < BE 270TH ST \ aa y'O W A ST SF F a UW ' W \ Q _� W'L ♦ � � I.. W SE 271ST ST~ \ v •. M _ 29 28 BE .. 272No \ se 272lO 2N F• 10 p p a 32 W W z C \ n M e M w E 2T7R0 PL 27 ST ` H F N < SF 274TH ST - � < BE 276 sE 274n+ FS Z ST y,l ~N 40 < n sE 276Tr BE M 27M ST To S 276TH WAY �\ t r v SE z7c PL r • el s4• Y 90 N[TR[[ �_ \ MMTNN 277TH 9E R SE - 1�HOOL K E 277TH PL d f 3re m SE 280 TH ST 280 � S PVT RD tJ W U N � SE 281ST ST w yG S T SE a 282ND ST } SE 282ND rn w Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I- Accept as Complete Wickstrom noted that this project has similar conditions - in this case it was a rehab project. In this project an old sidewalk was found under the existing sidewalk which became a cost item to the contractor. He said the downtown area is old and it was difficult to anticipate many conditions. This lead to a higher cost for the project than was anticipated. Committee unanimously recommended that the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I project be accepted as complete. Derbyshire Watermain Replacement - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that on this project, the material was extemely poor and we ended up using more asphalt. The County wanted us to overlay the entire road and to avoid that, they restricted us to 3' of the shoulder and more imported material was required. As a result, this increased the cost of the project. Committee unanimously recommended that the Derbyshire Watermain Replacement project be accepted as complete. LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks -Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this project exceeded the bid amount primarily due to landscaping problems which we felt we could remold the landscape area. However, there were significant trees involved and the end result was that it was necessary to build a retaining wall which we felt would preserve the landscaping as well as keep the public relations with the neighbors. Committee unanimously recommended that the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Added items: Storm Drainage Code - Revision Brubaker said that he has received a request from the Construction Engineer to amend the Surface Water and Drainage Code wherein we would require a one year maintenance bond rather than a two year maintenance bond. Brubaker stated that the City typically requires a one year maintenance bond on almost all improvements; the two year maintenance bond requirement causes problems within the City staff and also, some developers try to get one bond to cover all their bonding requirements. Also it has been the City's experience that a one year bond is sufficient. Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LID 342 - SMITH STREET SIDEWALKS 2 . SUMMARY ST TE 'ENT: i�As recommended by the Public Works Committee, uthork2ation to accept as complete the contract with Mer- on, Inc. for the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project and release of retainage after receipt of State releases: The original contract was $83,731.70. The final construction cost was $102,963 .72, the overage being due to the necessity of constructing a retaining wall on the south side of Smith Street in order to maintain the landscaped areas. Adequate funds exist within the project fund to cover this overage. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum, Public Works minutes and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence from Councilman 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. 3N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS JANUARY 9, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom X RE: LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks (Washington Ave to 64th Ave South) Accept as Complete This project consisted of the installation of concrete sidewalks on the north and south sides of West Smith Street from Washington Avenue to 64th Avenue South. The contract was awarded to Mer-Con, Inc. for the bid amount of $83,731.70. The final construction cost was $102,963.72. This contract exceeded the bid amount primarily due to the necessity of constructing a retaining wall on the south side of Smith Street in order to maintain the landscaped areas. Adequate funds exist within the project fund to cover this overage. ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. OWN Ci� s FRAQf R '. C) rn W A C • ,y � Russ[u ROAD 54TH AVE.S O_ CC � mx jl tea^ / 58 TH AVE.S 0 ----- o 7 CD (DCD� r O W M z e_ -0-0 z OO 64 TH A% Avt s. N 01 = 6ATH AVEAK S t OO � Z y, I P � 4 y Q O W A •� M WASHO N f WAiiliMaT> AK z !k (4 j _r C * A x ~.I 72ND AVE S C M _ AVIE PION C 71ST PL S D H n up r KAMM AVE AK 7' Mf t r r, H �T11 AK 6TI{ H A ;K 11 N 6TM AVE .vE E > S STH AK ~ T * M 4TH AVE TH+ 4 A • H 4T11 AVL < 6 Z � N Ito AVE r �N 2lgW AK * 4 wl�a•ANIM _. QY� A/E 1 7 r"WJ WX L�.w Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I-Accept as Complete Wickstrom noted that this project has similar conditions - in this case it was a rehab project. In this project an old sidewalk was found under the existing sidewalk which became a cost item to the contractor. He said the downtown area is old and it was difficult to anticipate many conditions. This lead to a higher cost for the project than was anticipated. Committee unanimously recommended that the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I project be accepted as complete. Derbyshire Watermain Replacement -Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that on this project, the material was extemely poor and we ended up using more asphalt. The County wanted us to overlay the entire road and to avoid that, they restricted us to 3' of the shoulder and more imported material was required. As a result, this increased the cost of the project. Committee unanimously recommended that the Derbyshire Watermain Replacement project be accepted as complete. LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this project exceeded the bid amount primarily due to landscaping problems which we felt we could remold the landscape area. However, there were significant trees involved and the end result was that it was necessary to build a retaining wall which we felt would preserve the landscaping as well as keep the public relations with the neighbors. Committee unanimously recommended that the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Added items: Storm Drainage Code - Revision Brubaker said that he has received a request from the Construction Engineer to amend the Surface Water and Drainage Code wherein we would require a one year maintenance bond rather than a two year maintenance bond. Brubaker stated that the City typically requires a one year maintenance bond on almost all improvements; the two year maintenance bond requirement causes problems within the City staff and also, some developers try to get one bond to cover all their bonding requirements. Also it has been the City's experience that a one year bond is sufficient. -r&6 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STORM WATER DRAINAGE CODE REVISION 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: Aarecommended by the Public Works Committee, uthorization to dinance No o$ amending Section 7.00 090 and Sections 7. 07. 100 pier 7. 07 Surface Water and Drainage Code of the Kent City Cod The maintenance bonds requ r d for stormwater projects is presently set at two years wh8all other maintenance bonds held on projects are for one year. a establish a one year maintenance bond for stormwater drainage projects and revise Chapter 7. 07 of the Kent City Code to reflect same. T ibi 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) (telephone con- currence from Councilman 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. 30 Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I- Accept as Complete Wickstrom noted that this project has similar conditions - in this case it was a rehab project. In this project an old sidewalk was found under the existing sidewalk which became a cost item to the contractor. He said the downtown area is old and it was difficult to anticipate many conditions. This lead to a higher cost for the project than was anticipated. Committee unanimously recommended that the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I project be accepted as complete. Derbyshire Watermain Replacement - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that on this project, the material was extemely poor and we ended up using more asphalt The County wanted us to overlay the entire road and to avoid that, they restricted us to 3' of the shoulder and more imported material was required. As a result, this increased the cost of the project. Committee unanimously recommended that the Derbyshire Watermain Replacement project be accepted as complete. LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks - Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this project exceeded the bid amount primarily due to landscaping problems which we felt we could remold the landscape area. However, there were significant trees involved and the end result was that it was necessary to build a retaining wall which we felt would preserve the landscaping as well as keep the public relations with the neighbors. Committee unanimously recommended that the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Added items: Storm Drainage Code - Revision Brubaker said that he has received a request from the Construction Engineer to amend the Surface Water and Drainage Code wherein we would require a one year maintenance bond rather than a two year maintenance bond. Brubaker stated that the City typically requires a one year maintenance bond on almost all improvements; the two year maintenance bond requirement causes problems within the City staff and also, some developers try to get one bond to cover all their bonding requirements. Also it has been the City's experience that a one year bond is sufficient. Y Committee unanimously recommended that Chapter 7.07 of the Kent City Code be amended dealing with bonds, and to change it from a two year maintenance period to a one year period. LID 327 & LID 330 Segregations - Resolution Revision Brubaker stated that a flaw was discovered in the City's communication with Birtcher Frank Properties (Van Doren's Landing) on the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. He explained that the method used for computing the segregation used by Birtcher Frank was different from the method that the City understood them to be using. Therefore, there is a disparity in the numbers. Brubaker requested permission to present to Council two separate Resolutions - one for LID 327 and one for LID 330 that would essentially fix the flaw and in the process, combine the existing assessments applicable to this Birtcher Frank Property since it is under one ownership now, into one assessment. As a result, from this point forward, there will be a very clear formula to use. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the City Attorney to draw up two Resolutions clarifying the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. Meeting adjourned: 5:20 p.m. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent , Washington, amending maintenance bond and insurance requirements in the City' s Surface Water and Drainage Utility Code, Chapter 7 . 07 of the Kent City Code . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Code Section Amended. Section 7 . 07 . 090 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows : Sec . 7 . 07 . 090 . Bonds and liability insurance required. A. The public works department is authorized to require all persons constructing retention/detention or other drainage treatment/abatement facilities to post surety and cash bonds . Where such persons have previously posted or are required to post other such bonds on the facility itself or on other construction related to the facility, such person may with the permission of the department of public works and to the extent allowable by law combine all such bonds into a single bond. At no time shall the amount thus bonded be less than the total amount which would have been required 1 in the form of separate bonds . Such a bond shall on its faces clearly delineate those separate bonds which it is intended to replace . B . Prior to commencing construction, the person constructing the facility shall post a construction bond, or other security in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming such construction with the approved drainage plans . The amount of the bond or security shall reflect the costs of the approved drainage plan and shall be increased at one-year intervals in a proportion equivalent to the prevailing rate of inflation in construction costs as specified in the procedures manual . After determination by the department of public works that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans and upon receipt of the maintenance bond required in subsection C. below, the construction bond shall be released. At the city' s option, an assignment of savings, letter of credit or some other form of guarantee acceptable to the city may be substituted for the bond requirement . C. After satisfactory completion of the facilities and release of the construction bond by the city, the person constructing the facility shall commence a tape— one year period of satisfactory maintenance of the facility. A cash bond or other security instrument excluding security bonds to be used at the discretion of the public works department to correct deficiencies in the maintenance affecting public health, safety and welfare must be posted and maintained 2 throughout the t-vae-- one year maintenance period. The amount of the eegh maintenance bond shall be determined by the public works department , but shall not be in excess of fifteen (15) percent nor less than ten (10) percent of the construction cost of the drainage facilities . In addition, a surety bond or cash bond to cover the cost of design defects or failures in workmanship of the facilities shall also be posted and maintained throughout the twe- one year .maintenance period. Ti3e -aTR unt ef-��nT shall 15e vt te tie `i rate t F, .... _ At the city' s option, an assignment of savings , letter of credit, or some other form of guarantee acceptable to the city may be substituted for the bond requirement . D. The person constructing the facility shall provide liability insurance in accordance with the latest Edition of Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction or in such other form type and amount as required by the public works department . At a minimum. the T-he city shall be named as an additional insured and the insurance shall protect the city from any liability for any accident , negligence, failure of the facility, or any other liability whatsoever, relating to the construction or maintenance of the facility. The liability insurance shall be provided during construction and for the required period of maintenance following construction, provided that in the case of facilities assumed by the city for maintenance pursuant to section 7 . 07 . 100 , the requirement to provide 3 insurance shall terminate when the city assumes maintenancE.— responsibility. Section 2 . ,Code Section Amended. Section 7 . 07 . 100 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows : Sec. 7 . 07 .100 . City assumption of operation and maintenance. A. The city may assume the operation and maintenance responsibility of retention/detention or other drainage treatment abatement facilities after the expiration of the twe one year operation and maintenance period in connection with the subdivision of land; if : 1 . All of the requirements of section 7 . 07 . 090 have been fully complied with; 2 . The facilities have been inspected and approved by the department of public works after twe one (1) Xear of operation in accordance with the procedures manual ; 3 . All necessary easements entitling the city to properly operate and maintain the facility have been conveyed to the city and recorded with the King County auditor; 4 . The surety bond or other security in section 7 . 07 . 090 has been extended for one (1) year, 4 covering the city' s first year of operation and maintenance; and 5 . The developer has supplied to the city an accounting of capital, construction and operation and maintenance expenses or other items , for the drainage facilities up to the end of the fie— one year period, for the purpose of establishing the basis for future bonding requirements for other developments . B . If the city elects not to assume operation and maintenance responsibility for the facilities it will be the responsibility of the developer to make arrangements with the occupants or owners of the subject property for assumption of operation and maintenance in a manner subject to the approval of the department of public works or in accordance with the procedures manual . Such arrangements shall be completed and approved prior to the end of the twe one year period of developer responsibility. C . If the city elects not to assume operation and maintenance responsibility, the drainage facilities shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the arrangements as approved by the department of public works . The city may inspect the facilities in order to ensure continued use of the facilities for the purposes for which they were built and in accordance with these arrangements . 5 Section 3 Savings . Kent City Code Sections 7 . 07 . 090 and 7 . 07 . 100, which are amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance . Section 4 . Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable . The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances . Section 5 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 19— APPROVED the day of 19—. PUBLISHED the day of 19 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 7 'TcJ3 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17. 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: WILLOW WAY SALE 2 . SUMMARY ST TEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works'___ Director, thorization to accept the Bill of Sale for Willow Way submi ed by Litowitz Construction, Inc. , for continuous operation and maintenance of 780 feet of sanitary sewer improvements, and release of bonds after expiration period. This project is located at S. 222nd Street & 100th Avenue S.E. 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. 3P j g SE 211TH ST SF 2r7r1 P,. SE I' 212TH , 37 41 J geJ4. < > 212TH ST _ • _ x < SEA" 212TH S7 95 P J !?l 6 R 1' Q N 0� " > oWi SE ti tir j�10 S7 13TH �� °'�H w SF SE< 213TH ,r " Jp ti 3 ST < ST S 21 H 3 213TH xii SE 213TH PL ST N3 216TH > ^d J < SE 216TH ST d SE 21T 1E S 218TH 1 aL F / F sr a � SE ST s 2 sr 3 < h o E 219TH x ST PROJECT LOCATION °TH SSE a+ S E�' ST u S 2T D T SE 222NO 0 222N0 ST �� 515 SE < ,x- n y \ 9 7 y 7 8 fE 224TH ST O < PD 18 18 17 �2°p�a SE K a n a 225TH ac 10 KE < x SE 2261 H ATC '+" PL x SE 2 ei n ^S 22M n ~ f x S 2 ST 228TH m < fE s x y ST SE 226TH PL 22 ST 229TH ST SE 226TH y w fE �w 229� �T 29THS a > �¢ w PL < (Pvt) • SE 231 D°4 t SE 2 x ST 1 9T 3 231ST BE 2 1 T SE 2319T ST ; w 230THN ST xp 3 232ND < K' �0 232ND ST Sw ST f 232N (�� 232ND ST SE ..< 3T SE 232ND PL 232NO = •1 S 94TH CTS n l I. F K ��,. _, I �,.. J� SE 231RO< } n 0 1c w k S 236TN 236TH ST A y _ "� ` (Pvt) ST 6TH K x wAIYROM vk > ."+ SF 237TH ST > N (Pvt) 234 �p < c S233TH w x (Pvt SE 239TH ST _ n�L < O ST K < N DOST = 01 S 230 PL x of w OFFICE f 240 ST 1 1 7 t< SE TN J —_ + > C < y Pe STI f 241ST ST j T. WILLOW WAY �O 3 242NO E L RA E BY 37 N -TG 113 Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 . 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COSTELLO APARTMENTS O 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization o accept the Bill of Sale for Costello Apartments submitted by he King County Housing Authority, for continuous operation and maintenance of 20 feet of water main extension, 565 feet of s nitary sewers, 900 feet of street improvements and 865 fee of storm sewers, and release of bonds after expiration period. This project is located at 6610 South 238th Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3Q to > Iw S227TH_PL -- Q W 2 �° a � ` _ zi F cD n fO 2 4��� • 22•TM sr n 4 N +t i W INDUSTRIAL AREA 4' 41 zz _ LANDING WAY 'I s l 11:T:S. \ �\so� - ... 1 167 UNW 1978 POPU TION-1 ,400 =ATION-2 500 VATION,3s. 2347H z ST < w; COIF fT J s PROJECT LOCATION s °: `q < III CLOD DY $7� A N "• de F Fs, s gas H f 1 i w CLO4.11 N ST zz OF T. {7 <Y Z s_ Z Z JANES I ST 14 ! 13 s 2 4 CC'ti 1 23 24 1 r' Iantlrr.n�0� . I KENT 1.1..11 rlr L1> .•,� i1 .\�:.::, _ < COMMONS �. i�,"• .. :: saw fT I � < < Iu1111 •' . PAI(K (PvU ya S MILWA 'KK ' f \_\� W SMITH ST < Z < W SMITH ST 90 = S •r•�vi 2 O I Z �p W NARRI F fT 4` HARRISON ST N ;L:ggpq f 2 Z < S 2"TH ET Z W' MEEKER 4 2 ST MJL 2 4 YI Oower ub W < ppyrE St E XILUS >< Sta STREET �� ■ NTCH6 z ale � ELE�JA aTY� T►D 516 *-OL" om To 181 cs p W T1TU fTy ,/ h = W •• HSTR on SMR < STVAIt K• N4 WIWS 4 ST r as 516 10 < < < N a W CR ST :L� r `� •I RU l MI-1 �KI\\ \\I, ® KI%%.\.\1 w W fT 516 '� 1 { 1•A1 Fire I•AIlb » _ Station << a It i cr 24 25 ; COSTELLO APARTMENTS IV� Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: REITEN ROAD LANDSLIDE -_-A PT—AS-eeMPLF LE 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept as compete the contract with Pile Contractors, Inc. for the Reiten Road Landslide project and release of retainage after State releases The original contract was $24,400. 00. The final construction cost was $24,740. 00. 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. 3R u c t.:• •'..vi LORON �• < \� WAY PILL fr s.237TK e� c �\ O +- W (Pvt) (Pvl) m SE 23YTH y1 < 0 923BTN. �E©y p or a N COW. ■` Z I O d ST DI a ` � ` ` = u :T .18 17 0 s ST a < a S 240 - d w Ped 0""'I EAST HILL d JoL i 24 g E 241ST ST r ,� �OO TARY SCHOOL z E < n < �Athlettc Fld < S 242ND pt I41 EER s : z PROJECT LOCATION gT ST Q IL E RA E s S 243RD } > ; ST N SE t< ST Z SMITH Sr S 44T • 04 C W 4 *KE KENT� Z ST in W M SR. Vim' < o > = a WAR X CTR _ ISJ`.,�. < ET S� y - t.� IT ',:. 'tGy. ST.JAM ES < F M ERz ST I=n y r0 \:!" may. • SCHOOL •:.,1 a L fe 241ITH fT ST st WEILAND z W S 24aTH �.TS. PL F ~ tc. fIMDS�r TACOMA ST )Y, q0' ST 24 ST �, 2 S a Se 2�eTTH $ W 516 a �VF a s CHERRY a l �' .' IO, > g 248TH ST SE a 248TH E DEAN 6'HILL ST - `^ �'T > ST I^ W ST <E MACLYN ST � �! _ 'o .E •Y s� < J I +J W SMR O 3 � r�•'1 '• a < - ST ALMN �• E OUIBERSON tg•M . WAY 2 < E SEATTLE ��• r'j = Ate., ST 516 • ; E � SEATT <r1, �•Y '1'It1A�t:1.1 � RU < KIWA\In I'\It b, +• .1/ I•\IIK .� F. Id < F Zj + E CHICA00 ST \�� y�l^+ S 252HO T i>< etc '� z CHi kao > c i �F7 `� EAST H Ma I = gT �ffVp E LAUREL ST R >� fir�J, �o " CENTE ST 2 Y M W < �. •J J,t s ',I,y_, `1v'-.: "� F.ench 9E 2SSTD O J� QP O E HEMLOCK ST •• e• Field 5— 3 CARTER a .y +�• �'c1un� * S15 t R R < MARION ST a E FILBERT ST W i W 1� Poll �Z f 'Pp KENT—MERIDIAN • ' o� 4c =� ac a > +•�•yY 1 iSR.H1. SCHOOL n ST t W a < <Qr.• ' O t < 24 I9 7 E a W S< WA IUT a a ST �y n. SE 4,` 4• p !. fy J W W .1 \ 30 25 30 < MAPLE STy i a ; b a Teen15 Chih �` ••.'� ,f• y S 259TH ST K F N T w - CEMETERY �,}.�It, X.C.AUKEEN , ...... . .. O P. K_ '. SE 2WTH ST I JAILCOURT SCENIC HILLr ■ ■ 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I ALDER LN S 262NO 1 ST ( S 262ND PL n � I ( a W D \ SE (26-4 1 < I _ N I 1 SPL S 2sr(1i ST a < i W = REITEN ROAD LANDSLIDE REPAIR e,, Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: 116TH AVENUE WATER MAIN 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Pub l c Works Director, authorization to accept as complete the ontract with Fournier Construction, Inc. for the 116th Avenue W ter Main project and release of retainage after State release The original contract was $89, 937.22 . The final construction cost was $95,490.80. 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. 3S FIRE !p. TRAINING CENTER rt:+aTHXo DANIELS t4TTH p. ELEM. 4P CT SE 246TH ST W I � N W > a x _ /.' NSE 251 St SE ZSOTM`'T N � W SE 2540 ST SE 252N0' PL'" < EAST HILL ` W EE S3 .i CENTER °' r ,m - < = W F.ench SE 252ND O yW W b - r N J Field ST 1 W < ,W SE 254TH '_^ - a F A(.T.S.9515 11\ < < a r k > KENT-MERIDIAN = + .. SE 7p iSR.Mi. SCHOOL SE 256TH ST �0 2S x a 30 ; F m. / 29 28 W 1 sKENT SCHOOL STRIC q ADMINISTRATION LOG. SE 59TH IJ SE 260TH ST 260 gT 0�� ST �� 9�� r{ PL ` ., f SE 261S'. n .p tie o sT W ( _x S < SEQUOIA ` x (Pyt) JR.H1. a s z PL SCHOOL N L to x ? SE ,ram AthIeIi 0 P ` SE 264TH ST 11�IV SE 264THST •S�g6' 0 s 516 � � 26 S 5 F M ♦♦ to PL = O SE 265TH C > Waster SE 2 TH PL < .Neu ?:� ST SE 267Trl 'sr _ u SE 267TH PROJECT LOCATION z u l ST 266TH \ SE 266TH si o c,+�♦ �' w a sE z66TH PLST SE 269TH ST_ SE 270TH T •rr < !E >< 270TH fT O ti � a SE 270TH \'•�� �... STPL F o� Wro ,>� S E 2715T �' 4 Z t I' boo ~ a = M 3 29 SE 272ND ST 8�- r > 2 SE .. 272M0' �--- W F p. = M ` M 3 32 0 32 M M i w w \SE x N 274 j f ST r < < < 274TH ST V < < SE 276 1 E z 274TH ST W3 ciW T T �+ F r � - 116TH WATERMAIN �,� � Ov �4 c(_( c -At -the Council meeting of January 17 , 1,995, Brent McFall--,added:- -EoTrsen­t'Cale-ndar Item-3T :as fbilows : "sett the date for a public hearing on the Beck Annexation for February 7 and considers-ng- adoption of an annexation ordinance at that time. and�publishi-+Pgj the appropriate notice' Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE DEBT REFUNDING - ORDINANCE AND CONTRACTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their January 11 meeting, the Operations Committee recommended adoption of an ordinance for the refunding of 1988 Golf Complex Bonds with Councilmanic Bonds and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Refunding Trust Agreement and Refunding Bond Purchase Agreement with Lehman Brothers. May Miller from the Finance Department and Dick King from Lehman Brothers will review the Golf Refunding proposal and Bond Market. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos, letters, ordinance, trust agreement, and bond purchase agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee Operations Committee (3-0) November 15 and January 11 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Golf Refunding Bonds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 0n moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance No. 3a()9 relating to the 1995 Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Refunding Trust Agreement and the 1995 Golf Course Refunding Bond Purchase Agreement with Lehman Brothers. DISCUSSION• ACTION• V1�C Council Agenda Item No. 4A MILLER, MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print . -- -- - - -- ----- ---- - - -- - - - ----- - - - - - - - --- - - Subject : 1988 GOLF BOND REFUNDING Creator : Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated : 01/06/95 at 0825 . TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MAY MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AT THEIR 11/15/94 & 1/11/95 MEETINGS, YOUR APPROVAL IS REQUESTED TO APPROVE THE REFINANCING OF THE 1988 GOLF COMPLEX BONDS WITH COUNCILMANIC BONDS FOR APPROXIMATELY $5 , 415, 000 . THE AVERAGE INTEREST RATE IN TODAY' S MARKET IS ESTIMATED AT 6 . 18%, HIGHER THAN WE HAD ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED BUT LOWER THAN IT WAS LAST MONTH . THE REFINANCING WILL STILL PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY $224 , 000 IN NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS, WHICH IS 4 . 97% OF THE REFUNDED 1988 PRINCIPAL. THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE ISSUE HAS DECREASED SLIGHTLY TO $5 , 395 , 000 , SINCE THE CITY MADE P_ DECEMBER PAYMENT. THE USE OF COUNCILMANIC BONDS TO REFINANCE THE 1988 GOLF COMPLEX REVENUE BONDS FULFILLS TWO MAJOR GOALS . FIRST, IT REDUCES THE DEBT SERVICE COST AND IS RESTRUCTURED TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANT CASH FLOW SAVINGS IN 1996 , 1997 & 1998 . AND SECOND, IT ELIMINATES THE NEED TO MAINTAIN A $560 , 000 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE ACCOUNT. THE SAVINGS, CASH FLOW, NEW MONEY PORTION AND ELIMINATION OF THE RESERVE WILL PROVIDE FUNDS TO REFURBISH THE DRIVING RANGE, CONSTRUCT A NEW MINI-PUTT, UP- GRADE THE EXISTING GOLF COURSE OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS . AT 'T'HOUGH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS A REQUIRED F DGE IN COUNCILMANIC DEBT, THE INTENT IS TO CONTINUE TO USE GOLF COURSE REVENUE TO MAKE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON THE 1995 BONDS . THE ATTACHED LETTER FROM LEHMAN BROTHERS TO AMBAC INDEMNITY CORPORATION EXPLAINS THE REFUNDING BONDS & THE CITY' S INTENT TO MAKE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FROM GOLF COURSE REVENUE. COUNCIL ACTION: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE 111995 LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS" ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE "REFUNDING TRUST AGREEMENT" AND 111995 REFUNDING BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT" WITH LEHMAN BROTHERS . LEHMANT BROTHERS F7CHP.RD B.F NG SENIOR VICE FRESME11 December 27, 1994 Mr. Carl G. Dincesen First Vice President AMBAC Indemnity Corporation One State Street Plaza New York City, New Fork 10004 Re: City of Rent, Washington LTGO Bonds Dear Carl: Enclosed is a package of information regarding the City of Kent's upcoming issuance of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, for which Lehman Brothers is serving as the _. managing underwriter. Proceeds of the issue will enable the City to refinance its 1988 Golf Complex Revenue Bonds and finance additional capital improvements to its Golf Complex, including an expansion of the driving range and the nine hole par three course. As noted in the enclosed financing schedule, we plan to price and purchase the issue on Tuesday, January 17. If possible, thus, we would like to receive an insurance commitment on or before Thursday, January 12. )X e have asked Moody's and S & P to rate the 1995 Bonds, and I believe they will confirm the outstanding ratings of Al/A= with little difficulty. By way of background, in 1988 the City issued S53 million of non-rated Golf Complex Revenue Bonds to finance the construction of a regulation size, eighteen hole golf course, which included a small clubhouse. The 1988 Bonds are secured by a Bross revenue pledge, and the City committed to meet any operation and maintenance shortfalls with a pledge of the General Fund, which has not been required to date. The expansion of the City's non-voted debt capacity last summer renewed our interest in refinancing the outstanding 1988 Bonds, which carry an average interest rate of approximately 8%. The opportunity to achieve debt service savings in conjunction with funding additional improvements to the facilities has led to a decision to proceed. ten.em. ..m. Tr .n. er.•^rf� .c .r ^�' . e .n.-... +T.Cnn.' nl.\ rP\i tw^CrA••f tf.L'l•.`... Mr. Carl Dincesen December 27, 1994 Pate 2 Proceeds of the 1995 Bonds ,gill escrow the 1988 Bonds to the earlier of their maturity or 1995 call date and fund approximately $1 million in capital improvements. The Cin intends to continue paying debt service associated %pith the Golf Complex (which will consist of debt service on the 1995 Bonds) from revenues of the Golf Complex. Historically, the debt service coverage ratio on the 1988 Bonds has averaged approximately 1.50x during the past three years. Specifically enclosed are the folloxing items: 1. Draft Preliminary Official Statement; 2. Draft Bond Ordinance: 3. Draft Refunding Trust Agreement; 4. Financing schedule and distribution list: 5. Summary of Golf Complex Financials; and 6. The City's 1993, 1992 and 1991 CAFRs. Under separate cover, May Miller, the Cin's Finance Division Director, will send you the Preliminary 1995 Budget and the amendments thereto. The amendments largely are mechanical in nature, so the Preliminan, 1995 Budget will resemble the final 1995 Budget closely when the latter is printed in mid-Januan•. Ma} can address any questions you have concerning the amendments, or the Budget as a whole. In addition, Ma"• would be the best source for any questions you have concerning year-end 1994 figures. I look forward to hearing from the analyst who will be responsible for preparing your credit analysis. Finally, I trust the holidays are treating you and your family well. Sincerely, cc: Bernard R. Fredrickson ATTENTION GOLFERS In 1994 Kent City Council approved green fee increases to fund a number of renovations at the Riverbend Golf Complex. During the 1995 City of Kent budget process, the Kent City Council approved the re-financing of the Golf Complex bonds to make funds available now and over the next three years to t make improvements. Listed below are the projects that have been identified. For additional information call John Hodgson, Parks Director at 859-3992. 1995 Driving Range: Install drainage and synthetic turf with target greens Raise protective netting to 80 feet Extend shelter to cover remaining stalls Construct teaching area Replace stall netting Add 15 more parking stalls Remove house at east side of range Mini Putt: Completely renovate mini-putt course Install lighting and fencing Develop picnicking area 18-Hole Course: Improve drainage on 13th hole fairway Renovate 13th hole tee area Modify irrigation on 14th hole Renovate or replace 14th green Par 3 Course: Install irriaation system (Phase 1) 1996 Par 3 Course: Complete irrigation system (Phase II) 18 Hole Course: Renovate and expand tee areas on 5th and 7th holes Construct new tee area on 16th hole 1997 Maintenance Shop: Renovate, relocate or replace maintenance shop Design and construction drawings on these projects will be posted as they become available City of Kent Golf Comolex CURPENT PROJECTIONS 1995 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 -/' Fol ecast FOre C25`. FO!B 025t �Forecast Forecast FOre;.as; REVENUE: Green Fees-9 278,725 282,905 287,150 291,457 295,829 300,255 304,770 Green Fees-18 1,257,324 1.276,184 1,295,321 1,314,757 1,334,478 i,354,495 1,374,812 Ranoe Fees 4E2,814 490,056 497,407 504,853 512,441 520,128 527,930 I'Ani-putt Fees 78,380 104.556 106,124 107,716 109,332 l 10,972 112,637 Lesson Fees iO3,328 104,678 106,451 i08,048 109,669 i i 1,3i4 ii2,984 Me_,ch2ndise 399,843 405,841 411,929 418,103 424,3E0 430,743 437,207 Food & Beverage 339,237 344,326 349,491 354,733 350,054 365,455 370,937 Ca & Club Rent 147,375 149,5813 151,£30 i54,107 155,419 155,765 161,14E Misc=_lianeous =,398 4,395 4,C95 4,393 4,398 4,'98 4,393 ------ TOTAL REVENUE: 3,091.424 3,162,731 3,21C,107 255,192 3,307,000 3,3 5 6,5 3 C.406,821 OPERATING EXPENSES: 2,122,704 2,159,912 2.217,151 2,273,134 2,330,722 2,339 924 2,451,007 Operaiing Income 965,720 992,819 992,926 9E5,058 976,278 966,545 955,814 NONOPERATING REVENUE 45,627 43,545 43,089 42,609 42,105 42,105 42,105 '-.mount Av2iiabie for • Debt E Improvements 1,015,347 i,035,364 1.036,0i5 1,G-1 637 1,01E,383 1,008,c"50 997,9191 OTHIER FINANCIAL SOURCES (USES) Transfer for 85 GO Debt (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) (140,000) Debt Principal & Interest (314.450) (314,450) (339,450) (623,275) (618,0E5) (616,765) (614,178) Bond Sale 1,000,000 Less Reserve (560,120) Operating Capital Outlay (40,000) (40.000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) Capital Plan Improvements Drivino P.anoe (822,800) Mini-Putt (247,500) 18 Hole (126,500) (88,000) Par 3 - Irrigation (110,000) (220,000) General Complex (16,500) Maintenance Facility (22,000) (308,000) Financial Sources (Uses) (1,377,870) (824,450) (827,450) (803,275) (798,085) (796,765) (794,178) INCREASE (DECREASE) IN (362,523) 2 11.914 208,565 224,392 220,29E 211,885 203,741 Beginning Working Capital 702630 340107 552021 760586 98497E 1205276 1417161 Ending Working Capital 340,107 552,021 760,586 984,978 1,205,276 1,417,161 1.620,902 3 ErOTHE E=:JTL- - C 1 T'' so(iRCES AND USES OF FUNDS City of Kent, Washington M LTGO end Refunding, Bonds, 1994 Plus: Less: Par Discount Total Amount Accrued Sources of Funds Bond Proceeds: 5,395,000.00 2C,686.55 - 5,415,655.55 Serial Maturities 56C,120.00 other Sources of Funds: 560,120.00 92 473.75 estimated Reserve Balance 97.473.7-D ------ 65Z,593.75 Debt Service on Deposit 652,593.75 6,047,593.75 20,636.58 - 6,06S,280.33 Plus: Less: Par Discount o.al Aunt Accrued Uses of Funds 7.54 Refunding Escrow Deposits: 7-54 4.932.800.00 Lash Deposit -- -" �— 4.932 800.00 �--- 4,932,607.5» SLG Purchases 4 93-'g 7-54 _ 20,686.56 other Fund Deposits: 20,686.58 General Fund 80,925.00 Delivery Date Expenses: 80 g25.00 31.114.73 Cost of Issuance 34.73 119.73 Bond Insurance Premium 112,039.73 2,746.48 other Uses of Funds: 2,746.48 1 DOS Contingency 11 00� 1,CC2,746.48 Capital Projects 1,002,746.48 _ 6,C58,280.33 6,068,2S0.33 (Financc 2.2C3 KENT:1994) Page 1 05-.1an-95 8:25 am Prepared try Lehman Brothers DRAFT DATED JANUARY 4 , 1995 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $5 , 415 , 000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995 , of the City to provide part of the funds with which to pay the cost of advance refunding the City' s outstanding Golf Complex Revenue Bonds, 1988 , acquiring, constructing and installing certain improvements to the City's Golf Complex and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of such bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and a project fund; providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an agreement with Bank of _ , Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington. This document prepared by: Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 0161497.03 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, 1995 Paoe Recitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 2 . Debt Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 3 . Authorization of Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 4 . Description of Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 5. Registration and Transfer of Bonds . . . . . . . Section 6. Payment of Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 7 . Optional Redemption and Open Market Purchase of Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 8 . Notice of Redemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 9 . Failure to Redeem Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 10 . Pledge of Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 11. Form and Execution of Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . Section 12 . Bond Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 13 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest onBonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 14 . Refunding of the 1988 Bonds . . . . . . . . . . . Section 15. Call for Redemption of the 1988 Bonds . . . . . . Section 16. City Findings with Respect to Refunding . . . . . Section 17 . Transfer of City Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 18 . Bonds Negotiable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 19 . Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds . . . . . . Section 20. Bond Fund; Project Fund; and Deposit of Bond Proceeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pane 0161497.03 -i- Section 21. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract . . . . . . . . Section 22 . Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final Section 23 . Temporary Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 24 . Effective Date of Ordinance . • . . . . • • • . . - Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01614r.03 -11- CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $5 , 415 , 000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995, of the City to provide part of the funds with which to pay the cost of advance refunding the City' s outstanding Golf Complex Revenue Bonds, 1968 , acquiring, constructing and installing certain improvements to the City' s Golf Complex and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of such bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and a project fund; providing for and authorizing the purchase of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds herein authorized and for the use and application of the money derived from those investments; authorizing . the execution of an agreement with Bank of _ Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington. WHEREAS, the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") , owns and operates an 18-hole regulation municipal golf course, a 9-hole par 3 golf course, driving range and mini-putt course, together with other recreational facilities related thereto (the "Golf Complex") ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2790, the City heretofore issued its $5 , 285 , 000 par value Golf Complex Revenue Bonds, 1988 (the 111988 Bonds") , for the purpose of providing a portion of the funds to develop and construct the 18-hole municipal golf course, and by that ordinance reserved the right to redeem the 1988 Bonds prior to their maturity on December 1, 1998 , at a price of 102% of par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and 0161497.03 WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $4 , 510, 000 par value of 1986 Bonds maturing on December 1 of each of the years 1995 through 2000, inclusive, and in the year 2008 , and bearing various interest rates from 7 . 20% to 8 .40%; and WHEREAS, after due consideration, it appears to the City Council that all of the outstanding 1988 Bonds (the "Refunded Bonds") may be refunded by the issuance and sale of the limited tax general obligation and refunding bonds authorized herein (the "Bonds") so that a substantial savings will be effected by the difference between the principal and interest cost over the life of the portion of the Bonds allocated to the refunding and the principal and interest cost over the life of the 1988 Bonds but for such refunding, which refunding will be effected by: (a) The issuance of the Bonds and the payment of the costs of the issuance of the Bonds and the costs of the refunding; (b) The use of money deposited in the Golf Complex Revenue Bond Fund, 1988 ; and (c) The payment of the principal of and interest on the 1988 Bonds when due up to and including December 1, 1998 , and the call, payment and redemption on December 1, 1998 , of all of the then-outstanding 1988 Bonds at a price of 102% of par; and WHEREAS, to effect that refunding in the manner that will be most advantageous to the City it is found necessary and advisable that certain Acquired Obligations (hereinafter defined) bearing interest and maturing at such time or times as necessary to accomplish the refunding as aforesaid be purchased out of a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds and other money of the City; and 0161497.03 -2- WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to make certain improvements to the Golf Complex, the estimated cost of which is $1, 025, 000 (including an allocable portion of the costs of issuance of the Bonds) , and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the cost of such improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interests of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to pay part of the cost of advance refunding the 1988 Bonds, acquiring, constructing and installing certain improvements to the Golf Complex, and paying the administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has offered to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: - Section 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: "Acquired Obligations" means those United States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness, Notes and Bonds--State and Local Government Series and other direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America purchased to accomplish the refunding of the 1988 Bonds as authorized by this ordinance. "Bond Fund" means the Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bond Fund, 1995 , created by this ordinance for the payment of the Bonds. 0161497.03 -3- "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar containing the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of Bonds held by each owner. "Bond Registrar" means the fiscal agencies of the state of Washington in Seattle, Washington, and New York, New York, as the same may be designated from time to time. "Bonds" means the $5 , 415 , 000 par value Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995 , of the City issued pursuant to and for the purposes provided in this ordinance. 111988 Bond Fund" means the City's Golf Complex Revenue Bond Fund, 1988 . 111988 Bonds" means the outstanding Golf Complex Revenue Bonds, 1988 , of the City issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 2790, the refunding of which has been provided for by this ordinance. "City" means the City of Kent, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington. "Code"means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. "Finance Director" means the Finance Division Director of the City. "Golf Complex" means the City' s existing 9-hole par 3 golf course, driving range and mini-putt course, the 18-hole regulation municipal golf course, all golf related buildings, facilities and equipment, and any other golf recreational facilities which 0161497.03 -4- hereafter may be acquired, constructed or combined lawfully with the existing facilities, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time made or constructed. "Government obligations" means direct, noncallable obligations of the United States of America. "Refunding Plan" means : (a) the placement of sufficient proceeds of the Bonds which, with other money of the City, if necessary, will acquire the Acquired Obligations to be deposited, with cash, if necessary, with the Refunding Trustee; (b) the payment of the principal of and interest on the 1988 Bonds when due up to and including December 1, 1998, and the call, payment and redemption on December 1, 1998, of all of the then-outstanding 1988 Bonds at a price of 102% of par; and (c) the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the foregoing elements of the Refunding Plan. "Refunding Trust Agreement" means a Refunding Trust Agreement between the City and the Refunding Trustee substantially in the form of that which is on file with the City Clerk and by this reference incorporated herein. "Refunding Trustee" means of Washington, serving as trustee or escrow agent or any successor trustee or escrow agent. Section 2 . Debt Capacity. The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 1994 is $3 , 893 , 431, 079 , and the City has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by limited tax general obligation bonds and conditional sales contracts in the principal amount of $15, 132, 006 incurred within the limit of up to 1-1/2% of the value of the 0161487.03 -5- taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the principal amount of $16,730, 000 incurred within the limit of up to 2-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City for capital purposes only issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City, and the amount of indebtedness for which bonds are authorized herein to be issued is $5, 415 , 000 . Section 3 . Authorization of Bonds. The City shall borrow money on the credit of the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing that indebtedness in the amount of $5 , 415 , 000 for general City purposes to pay part of the cost carrying out the Refunding Plan, acquiring constructing and installing certain improvements to the Golf Complex (the "Project") , and paying the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds (the "costs of issuance") . The general indebtedness to be incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1-1/2% of the value of the taxable property within the City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein. Section 4 . Description of Bonds . The Bonds shall be called Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995, of the City; shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $5,415, 000; shall be dated January 1, 1995; shall be in the denomination of $5, 000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity; shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification; shall bear interest (computed on the basis of a 0161497.03 -6- 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) payable semiannually on each June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1, 1995, to the maturity or early redemption of the Bonds; and shall mature on December 1 in years and amounts and bear interest at the rates per annum as follows: Maturity Interest Years Amounts Rates 1997 $ 70, 000 1998 295, 000 1999 305 , 000 2000 325, 000 2001 340, 000 2002 360, 000 2003 385 , 000 2004 405, 000 2005 435 , 000 2006 460, 000 2007 490, 000 2008 520 , 000 2009 495, 000 2010 530 , 000 Portions of the above maturity amounts are allocated to paying the respective costs of the Project and of carrying out the Refunding Plan, including a ratable share of proceeds used to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds , in accordance with the following schedule: Maturity Refunding New Money Years Allocation Allocation Total 1997 $ 70, 000 -- $ 70 , 000 1998 295 , 000 -- 295, 000 1999 305 , 000 -- 305, 000 2000 325, 000 -- 325 , 000 2001 340, 000 -- 340, 000 2002 360 , 000 -- 360, 000 2003 385 , 000 -- 385, 000 2004 405 , 000 -- 405, 000 2005 435 , 000 -- 435, 000 2006 460 , 000 -- 460, 000 0161467.M -7- 2007 490 , 000 -- 490 , 000 2006 520, 000 -- 520, 000 2009 -- 495 , 000 495 , 000 2010 -- 530 , 000 530, 000 The life of the Project to be acquired or constructed with the proceeds of the Bonds exceeds the term of the Bonds. Section 5 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on the Bond Register. The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Section 6 . Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at 0161497.03 -8- either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. Section 7 . Optional Redemption and open Market Purchase of Bonds . Bonds maturing in the years 1995 through 2004 , inclusive, shall be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem those Bonds prior to their stated maturity dates. The City reserves the right and option to redeem Bonds maturing on or after December 1, 2005, prior to their stated maturity dates at any time on or after December 1, 2004 , as a whole or in part within one or more maturities selected by the City (and by lot within a maturity in such manner as the Bond Registrar shall determine) , at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption. Portions of the principal amount of any Bond, in installments of $5 , 000 or any integral multiple thereof, may be redeemed. If less than all of the principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, there shall be issued to the registered owner, without charge therefor, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the registered owner) of the same maturity and interest rate in any of the denominations authorized by this ordinance in the aggregate principal amount remaining unredeemed. The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds purchased or redeemed under this section shall be canceled. 0161487.03 -9- Section 8 . Notice of Redemption. The city shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Moody's Investors Service, Inc. , and Standard & Poor's Ratings Group at their offices in New York, New York, or their successors, to Lehman Brothers Inc. at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Section 9 . Failure to Redeem Bonds . If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund hereinafter created and the Bond has been called for 0161497.03 -1�- payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds . Section 10. Pledge of Taxes. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding, the City irrevocably pledges to include in its budget and levy taxes annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally available and to be used therefor (including such revenues from the Golf Complex as the City may allocate to pay the Bonds) , to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and the full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest. Section 11.. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed or lithographed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law and shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: 0161487.03 -11- CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995 , described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY Bond Registrar By Authorized Signer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, delivered and issued and, when authenticated, delivered and issued, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds. Section 12 . Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to 0161497.03 -12- authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar' s Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 13 . Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Code, is applicable to the Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of 0161497.03 -13- any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Section 14 . Refunding of the 1988 Bonds. (a) Appointment of Refunding Trustee. of Washington, is appointed Refunding Trustee. (b) Use of Bond Proceeds • Accruisition and Substitution of Acquired Obligations. A sufficient amount of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited immediately upon the receipt thereof with the Refunding Trustee and used, together with money on deposit in the 1968 Bond Fund to be deposited with the Refunding Trustee, to discharge the obligations of the City relating to the 1988 Bonds under Ordinance No. 2790 by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the Refunding Trustee's simultaneous purchase of the Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide, together with a beginning cash balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amount required to be paid by the Refunding Plan. The Acquired Obligations are listed and more particularly described 0161497.03 -14- in Schedule A attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement between the City and the Refunding Trustee, but are subject to substitution as set forth below. Any Bond proceeds deposited with the Refunding Trustee that are not needed to purchase the Acquired Obligations and provide a beginning cash balance, if any, and pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds shall be returned to the City at the time of delivery of the Bonds for deposit in the Project Fund to pay costs of the Project. Prior to the purchase of any such Acquired Obligations, the City reserves the right to substitute other Government Obligations for any of the Acquired Obligations and to use any savings created thereby for any lawful City purpose if, (a) in the opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, the City's bond counsel, the interest on the Bonds and the 1988 Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Sections 103 , 148 and 149 (d) of the Code, and (b) such substitution shall not impair the timely payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan, as verified by a nationally recognized firm of independent certified public accountants. After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substitute therefor cash or Government Obligations subject to the conditions that such money or securities held by the Refunding Trustee shall be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not cause the Bonds and the 1988 Bonds to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and regulations thereunder in effect on the date of such substitution 0161497.03 -15- and applicable to obligations issued on the issue date of the Bonds, and that it obtain, at its expense: (1) verification by a nationally recognized independent certified public accounting firm acceptable to the Refunding Trustee confirming that the payments of principal of and interest on the Government Obligations, if paid when due, and any other money held by the Refunding Trustee will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan; and (2) an opinion from Foster.Pepper & Shefelman, bond counsel to the City, its successor, or other nationally recognized bond counsel to the City, to the effect that the disposition and substitution or purchase of such securities, under the statutes, rules and regulations then in force and applicable to the Bonds, will not cause the interest on the Bonds or the 1988 Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such disposition and substitution or purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the Bonds. Any surplus money resulting from the sale, transfer, other disposition or redemption of the Acquired Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be released from the trust estate and transferred to the City to be used for any lawful City purpose. (c) Administration of Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trustee is authorized and directed to purchase the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and to make the payments required to be made by the Refunding Plan from the Acquired obligations (or substitute obligations) and money deposited with the Refunding Trustee pursuant to this ordinance. All Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and the money deposited with the Refunding 0161487.03 -16- Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably, invested and applied in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2790, this ordinance, chapter 39 . 53 RCW and other applicable statutes of the State of Washington and the Refunding Trust Agreement. All necessary and proper fees, compensation and expenses of the Refunding Trustee for the Bonds and all other costs incidental to the setting up of the escrow to accomplish the refunding of the 1988 Bonds and costs related to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, including bond printing, verification fees, bond counsel's fees and other related expenses, shall be paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds. (d) Authorization for Refunding Trust Agreement. To carry out the Refunding Plan provided for by this ordinance, the Mayor or Finance Director of the City is authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and by this reference made a part hereof setting forth the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection with the payment, redemption and retirement of the 1988 Bonds as provided herein and stating that the provisions for payment of the fees, compensation and expenses of such Refunding Trustee set forth therein are satisfactory to it. Prior to executing the Refunding Trust Agreement, the Mayor or Finance Director of the City is authorized to make such changes therein which do not change the substance and purpose thereof or which assure that the escrow provided therein and the Bonds are in compliance with the 0161497.03 -17- requirements of federal law governing the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 15 . Call for Redemption of the 1988 Bonds. The City calls for redemption on December 1, 1998 , all then-outstanding 1988 Bonds at a price of 102% of par plus accrued interest. Such call for redemption shall be irrevocable after the delivery of the Bonds to the initial purchaser thereof. The date on which the 1966 Bonds are called for redemption is the earliest date on which the those bonds may be called for redemption. The proper officials of the City are authorized and directed to give or cause to be given such notices as required, at the times and in the manner required pursuant to ordinance No. 2790 in order to effect the redemption prior to their maturity of the 1988 Bonds. Section 16 . City Findings with Respect to Refunding. The City Council finds and determines that the issuance and sale of the Bonds allocable to the financing of the Refunding Plan at this time will effect a savings to the City and is in the best interest of the City and in the public interest. In making such finding and determination, the City Council has given consideration to the fixed maturities of the Bonds and the 1988 Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Bonds allocable to the financing of the Refunding Plan and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds and other money of the City used in the Refunding Plan pending payment and redemption of the 1988 Bonds. The City Council further finds and determines that the money to be deposited with the Refunding Trustee for the Refunded Bonds 016149l.m -18- in accordance with Section 14 of this ordinance will discharge and satisfy the obligations of the City under Ordinance No. 2790 with respect to the 1988 Bonds, and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants and agreements of the City therein made or provided for as to the 1988 Bonds, and that the 1988 Bonds shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding under such ordinance immediately upon the deposit of such money with the Refunding Trustee. Section 17 . Transfer of City Funds. The Finance Director is authorized to transfer all money on deposit in the 1988 Bond Fund to the Refunding Trustee as necessary to carry out the Refunding Plan. Section 18 . Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A. 8-102 and 62A.8-105 . Section 19 . Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or use money available from any other lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such then-outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the "defeased Bonds") and to pay the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts (together with money, if necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption, retirement or defeasance of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the 0161487.03 -19- "trust account") , then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account. The City shall include in the refunding or defeasance plan such provisions as the City deems necessary for the random selection of any defeased Bonds that constitute less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds, for notice of the defeasance to be given to the owners of the defeased Bonds and to such other persons as the City shall determine, and for any required replacement of Bond certificates for defeased Bonds. The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may apply any money in any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine. Section 20 . Bond Fund; Project Fund ; and Deposit of Bond Proceeds. There is created and established in the office of the Finance Director a special fund designated as the Limited Tax General obligation and Refunding Bond Fund, 1995 (the "Bond Fund") . Accrued interest on the Bonds, if any, received from the sale and delivery of the Bonds shall be paid into the Bond Fund. All taxes collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund. There also is created and established in the office of the Finance Director a special fund designated as the Golf Complex Project Fund, 1995 (the "Project Fund" ) . The principal proceeds 0161467 M -20- received from the issuance and sale of the Bonds remaining after the deposits required by Section 14 shall be deposited in the Project Fund and shall be used to pay the costs of carrying out the Project. Until needed to pay those costs, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings may be retained in the Project Fund and be spent for the purposes of that fund except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be withdrawn from the Project Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 21. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Lehman Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each Bond. Bond counsel shall not be required to review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other 0161497.03 -21- sales material issued or used in connection with the Bonds, and bond counsel's opinion shall so state. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 22 . Preliminary official Statement Deemed Final. The City Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated January _, 1995 (the "Preliminary official Statement") , prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds. For the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser' s compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (b) (1) , the .City "deems final" that Preliminary official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates , ratings and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters. Section 23 . Temporary Bond. Pending the printing, execution and delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may cause to be executed and delivered to the purchaser a single temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the Bonds. The temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest rates, principal payment dates and terms and covenants as the definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully registered Bond in the name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable to the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for 0161497.03 -22- definitive Bonds as soon as they are printed, executed and available for delivery. Section 24 . Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five (5) days following its publication as required by law. By JIM WHITE, Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel and Bond Counsel for the City Passed the day of 1995. Approved the day of 1995 . Published the day of 1995. I certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) Brenda Jacober, City Clerk 01614r.03 -23- PERKINS COTE A L1w PARTNERSHIP I.NCLuDING PROFESSIONAi CORPOR4'.IOT'5 AOFTH 221 N%%LL JTKFI'. A'.IIT h'lii ?Pi n 1�` AA .itl�.1T„. uy'• 1 �'• JEFFREY C. NAVE December 29, 1994 John Hillman Finance Department City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 9803 2-5895 Re: City of Kent, Washington Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995 Dear Mr. Hillman: Enclosed please find the first draft of the Bond Purchase Agreement for the City's Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bond transaction. I hope that you had an enjoyable New Year's weekend, and look forward to working with you next year. Very truly yours, PERKINS COIE �)Ile Jeffre 'C. Nave JCN:dhs Enclosure 11 504 1-0037/F;A943630.01 11 12/29/94 S CITY OF T ENT, WASHINGTON LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, 1995 BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT January 17, 1995 City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned (the "Underwriter") hereby offers to enter into this Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") with City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), which upon the City's acceptance hereof will be binding upon the City and the Underwriter. This offer is made subject to the City's acceptance by execution of this Bond Purchase Agreement and its delivery to the Underwriter on or before 11:59 P.M., Pacific Standard Time, January 17, 1995, and, if not so accepted, will be subject to withdrawal by the Underwriter upon notice delivered by the Underwriter to the City at any time prior to the acceptance hereof by the City. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be as defined in Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council on January 17, 1995 (the "Ordinance") and the Official Statement (as hereafter defined). 1. Purchase and Sale. Subject to the terms and conditions and upon the basis of the representations, warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth, the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the City for offering to the public, and the City hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter for such purpose, all (but not less than all) of the City's S Limited Tax General Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 1995 (the "Series 1995 Bonds"). The Series 1995 Bonds shall be dated January 1, 1995, shall have the maturities, shall bear interest at the rates and shall be subject to redemption as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, such interest being payable commencing June 1, 1995, and semiannually thereafter on each December 1 and June 1 to the date such Series 1995 Bonds mature or are redeemed. The aggregate purchase price of the Series 1995 Bonds shall be the purchase price set forth in Exhibit A hereto, plus interest accrued (as described in Exhibit A) on the Series 1995 Bonds from their date to the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined). 2. The Official Statement and Authorizing Instruments. The Series 1995 Bonds shall be otherwise as described in the Official Statement of the City, dated the date hereof, relating to the Series 1995 Bonds, which, together with all appendices PINK;:,.�:uoo ai; thereto, and with such changes therein and supplements thereto that are consented to in writing by the Underwriter, is herein called the "Official Statement," and shall be issued and secured under the Ordinance. The City authorizes the use of the Official Statement in connection with the public offering and sale of the Series 1995 Bonds. The City also approves the use by the Underwriter, before the date hereof, of the preliminary Official Statement, dated January _, 1995, relating to the Series 1995 Bonds, which together with the appendix attached thereto, is herein referred to as the "Preliminary Official Statement," in connection with the public offering of the Series 1995 Bonds. Promptly after the acceptance hereof by the City, the City shall cause to be delivered to the Underwriter copies of the final Official Statement (together with appendices attached thereto) dated the date hereof. The City hereby authorizes the Underwriter, and the Underwriter agrees at its own expense, to file one copy of the Official Statement, together with any supplement or amendment thereto, with at least one of the nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and two copies of the Official Statement (with any required forms) to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") or its designee pursuant to MSRB Rule G-36 no later than ten business days following the date hereof. 3. Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all the Series 1995 Bonds initially at the public offering prices (or }Melds) set forth on the cover page of the Official Statement, provided that the initial public offering prices (or yields) may be changed, from time to time, by the Underwriter as it deems necessary in connection with the marketing of the Series 1995 Bonds. 4. Representations, Covenants and Warranties. The City represents, covenants and warrants to the Underwriter that: (a) The Ordinance and this Bond Purchase Agreement are legal, valid and binding obligations of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with their terms except as enforceability may be Iimited by baril7uptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' ruts or contractual obligations generally and by the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and no authorization or approval is required for the execution and delivery of the Ordinance or this Bond Purchase .Agreement by the City, except such authorizations or approvals as shall have been obtained at or prior to the Closing, copies of which shall be delivered to the Underwriter at the Closing. (b) Except for the omission of such information that is dependent upon the final pricing of the Series 1995 Bonds for completion, all as permitted to be excluded by Rule 15c2-12, the Preliminary Official Statement was, as of its date, true and correct in all material respects and did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (c) The Official Statement is and at all times subsequent hereto up to and including the Closing Date ,NU be, true and correct in all material respects and does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. (d) The City has duly authorized and approved the execution of the Official Statement by the Director of Operations and Chief of Staff of the Cin- or his designee, including any amendments thereto under the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement. (e) The City covenants and agrees to cause sufficient quantities of the Official Statement to be delivered to the Underwriter to enable the Underwriter to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Commission promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Rule 15c2-12"), and with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-32, without charge, within seven business days of the date hereof and, if the Closing Date is less than seven business days after the date hereof, upon request of the Underwriter, in sufficient time to accompany any confirmation requesting payment from any customers of the Underwriter. v (f) The City further covenants and agrees that if, after the date hereof and until 25 days after the "end of the underwriting period" (as described below), any event shall occur as a result of which it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to make the statements therein in the light of Me circumstances under which they were made when the Official Statement is delivered to a purchaser, not misleading, or if it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to comply with law, the City shall notify the Underwriter and provide the Underwriter with such information as it may from time to time request, and to forthwith prepare and furnish, at its own expense (in a form and manner approved by the Underwriter), a reasonable number of copies of either amendments or supplements to the Official Statement so that the statements in the Official Statement as so amended and supplemented will not, in light of the circumstances under which they were made when the Official Statement is delivered to a purchaser, be misleading or so that the Official Statement will comply with applicable law. Unless otherwise notified in writing by the Underwriter. the City can assume that the "end of the underwrritino, period" for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 shall be the Closing Date. If such notice is so Riven in writing by the Underwriter, the Underwriter agrees to notify the Cite in writing following the occurrence of the "end of the underwriting period" as defined in Rule 1 5c2-12. (g) The City vNU advise the Underwriter promptly of the institution of any proceedings knower to it by any governmental agency prohibiting or otherwise affecting the use of the Official Statement in connection with the offering sale or distribution of the Series 1995 Bonds. (h) When delivered to The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") for the account of the Underwriter and paid for in full in accordance with the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Series 1995 Bonds (1) will have been duly authorized, executed, issued and delivered by the City, and (ii) will constitute valid, legally binding obligations of the City except as enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors' rights or contractual obligations generally to the extent constitutionally applicable and by the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases. (1) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the Closing, and except as disclosed in the Official Statement, to the knowledge of the City, no litigation is pending or is threatened in any court that (i) seeks to restrain or enjoin the issuance, sale or delivery of any of the Series 1995 Bonds, (ii) contests or affects the validity of the Series 1995 Bonds, the Ordinance, this Bond Purchase Agreement or the pledge of the City's full faith and credit to the payment of the Series 1995 Bonds, (iii) contests in any way, the completeness, accuracy or fairness of the Official Statement, or (iv) in any material respect might affect adversely the transactions contemplated herein, in the Ordinance or in the Official Statement. 0) The City will furnish such information, execute such instruments and take such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter as they may reasonably request to qualin' the Series 1995 Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the United States as the Underwriter may designate, except the City shall not be required in connection therewith or as a condition thereof to execute a general consent to service of process or to qualify to do business as a foreign corporation in any state. 5. The Closing. At 8:00 A.M., Pacific Standard Time, on February 1995, or at such other time or on such earlier or later business day as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter (the "Closing Date"), the City will deliver to the Underwriter the Series 1995 Bonds, duly executed and a authenticated, through the facilities of DTC in New York, New York or such other place to be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter, and shall deliver to the Underwriter the documents mentioned in Section 6 hereof, at such place in Seattle, Washington, as may be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter. The Underwriter will accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Series 1995 Bonds as set forth in Section 1 hereof by certified check or by wire in immediately available federal funds. The payment and delivery of the Series 1995 Bonds, together with the delivery of the aforementioned documents, is herein called the "Closing". The Series 1995 Bonds shall be made available to the Underwriter at the offices of DTC at least one business day before the Closing for purposes of inspection, and are to be left with DTC for safekeeping until release at Closing. The Underwriter acknowledges that the City is to have no responsibility for such safekeeping of the Series 1995 Bonds. 6. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Bond Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations and warranties herein and the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the Closing Date. The Underwriter's obligations under this Bond Purchase Agreement are and shall be subject to the performance by the City of its obligations to be performed hereunder and under the documents mentioned in this Section 6, at or prior to the Closing, and also shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The representations and warranties of the City contained herein shall be true, complete and correct in all material respects at the date hereof and on the Closing Date, as if made on and as of the Closing Date. (b) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive three copies of the final Official Statement manually executed on behalf of the City by the Mayor; provided, that as promptly as practicable after the Closing Date, such reasonable number of certified or conformed copies of the foregoing as the Underwriter may request. (c) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive the approving opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Bond Counsel to the City, as to the Series 1995 Bonds, dated the Closing Date and substantially in the form included in the Official Statement as Appendix _, and an opinion, dated the Closing Date and addressed to the Underwriter, of Perkins Cole, counsel to the Underwriter, in a form acceptable to the Underwriter. [(d) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive a municipal bond insurance policy issued by insuring the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 1995 Bonds, together with an opinion of counsel to regarding (1) the enforceability of the municipal bond insurance policy and (ii) the adequacy of the information 5 regarding and the municipal bond insurance policy set forth in the Official Statement.] (e) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive evidence, satisfactory to the Underwriter, that the Series 1995 Bonds are rated "_" by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and "_" by Standard & Poor's Corporation. (f) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive a report of YMPG Peat Marwick verifying the arithmetical accuracy of the forecasted receipts of principal and interest on the Government Obligations, the payment of the principal of and interest on the Refunded Bonds; and the yields on the Series 1995 Bonds and the Government Obligations- (g) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive such additional certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may reasonably deem necessary to evidence the truth and accuracy as of the time of the Closing of the representations of the Citv and the due performance or satisfaction by the City at or prior to such time of all agreements then to be performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the City. 7. Termination of Contract. In recognition of the desire of the City and the Underwriter to effect a successful public offering of the Series 1995 Bonds, the Underwriter shall have the absolute right to terminate this Bond Purchase Agreement by notification to the City if at any time at or prior to the Closing an event occurs that, in the reasonable judgment of the Underwriter, materially and adversely affects (i) the market price or marketability of the Series 1995 Bonds or (ii) the ability of the Underwriter to enforce contracts for sale of the Series 1995 Bonds. If the City is unable to satisry the conditions contained in this Bond Purchase Agreement or if the obligations of the Underwriter shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Bond Purchase Agreement, this Bond Purchase Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the Citv_ shall be under a further obligation hereunder, except as set forth in Section 8 hereof. 8. Expenses. The City shall pay or cause to be paid from 'the proceeds of the Series 1995 Bonds or other funds of the Citv available to it, the expenses incident to the performance of its obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to: (a) the fees and disbursements of the Registrar in connection with the issuance of the Series 1995 Bonds; (b) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and any other experts or consultants retained by the City in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby; (c) the cost of obtaining ratings on the Series 1995 Bonds; and (d) the cost of printing the Preliminary Official Statement and the final Official Statement. The Underwriter shall pay the cost of delivering the purchase price of the Series 1995 Bonds in immediately available federal funds and all other expenses it incurs in 6 connection with their public offering and distribution of the Series 1995 Bonds_, including the fees and disbursements of its counsel. 9• Notice. Any notice or other communication to be given to the City under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Cih of Kent, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032, Attention: Finance Division Director with a copy to the City Attorney, and any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to Richard B. King, Senior Vice President, Lehman Brothers, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7101, Seattle, Washington 98104. 10. Entire Agreement. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the City and the Underwriter and is made solely for the benefit of the City and the Underwriter (includina the successors or assigns of the Underwriter). This Bond Purchase Agreement shall become effective when accepted by the City in writing as heretofore specified, shall constitute the entire aRTeement between the City and the Underwriter and may not be amended or modified except in writing. No other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder by virtue hereof. All the City's representations, warranties and agreements in this Bond Purchase Aareement shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of (a) any investigation made by or on behalf of the Underwriter, (b) delivery of and payment for the Series 1995 Bonds hereunder, and (c) any termination of this Bond Purchase Agreement. LEI-BvLAN BROTHERS INC. Richard B. King Senior Vice President Accepted and agreed to as of the date first above written: CITY OF KENT King County, Washington ATTEST: Jim White, Mayor Brenda Jacober, Clerk ( SEAL ) 7 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN TERMS OF THE SERIES 1995 BONDS Principal Amount: S less original issue discount: ( � less underwriter's discount: Purchase Price: { *plus accrued interest from January 1, 1995 to the Closing Date.. Maturity Dates and Interest Rates: Interest Due Dec. 1 Princioal .Amount Rate Yield Price 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Optional Redemption: The Series 1995 Bonds maturing in the years through shall not be subject to redemption prior to their stated dates of maturity. Series 1995 Bonds maturing on and after December 1, shall be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities at the option of the City, on December 1, , or thereafter, in whole or in part (maturities to be selected by the City and by lot within a maturity as the Registrar shall determine) at any time, at the price of par, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Mandatory Redemption: The Series 1995 Bonds maturing on December 1, , are Term Bonds and shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption prior to maturity, in part, by lot in such manner as the Registrar shall determine, on December I in the years A- I through inclusive, at the price of par, plus accrued interest to the date of redemption, from mandatory sinking fund deposits into the Debt Sengce Account on the dates and in the principal amounts set forth below: Mandatory Sinking Fund Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption Dates Redemption Amount December 1, December 1, December 1, *Maturity, -rac Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: LADUM REZONE IRZ-94-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of an application by Larry and Jacqueline Ladum to rezone four (4) acres from MA, Industrial Agricultural, to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential. The property is located at approximately 6300 S. 236th Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Findings and Recommendations 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember m es, Councilmember seconds to accept/reject/modif the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to adopt/reject/ dify the Hearing Examiner's recom- mendation of approv of the Ladum Rezone No. RZ-94-2, and to direct the City At orney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: LADUM #RZ-94-2 APPLICANT: Larry and Jacqueline Ladum REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 4 acres of property form MA, Industrial Agricultural, to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential. LOCATION: The property is located at approximately 6300 S. 236th Street. APPLICATION FILED: August 24, 1994 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: April 21 , 1994 MEETING DATE: October 19, 1994 continued November 16, 1994 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: November 30, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Larry Ladum, applicant WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None EXHIBITS: 1) Hearing Examiner file 2) Letter from Larry Ladum requesting delay of hearing INTRODUCTION After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application. 1 Hearing Findings and Recommendation Ladum #RZ-94-2 FINDINGS 1 . The property proposed for a rezone is located at approximately 6300 South 236th Street. 2. The property is approximately 4 acres. The applicant proposes a rezone from MA, Industrial Agricultural, to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential. Exhibit 1 . 3. Property to the north, south and west of the site is zoned MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential. Property to the east of the site is zoned Industrial Agricultural. A multifamily residential development known as "The Lakes" borders the property on the west and south sides. The property to the north is currently undeveloped, but is part of a future phase of The Lakes development. The site to the east is occupied by the recently completed Neeley-O'Brien Elementary School. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. 4. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan map designates the site as MF, Multifamily Residential. The Valley Floor Plan also designates the site as Multifamily. Exhibit 1 . 5. No specific development project is associated with this rezone application. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Mr. Ladum. 6. A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for this proposal on April 21, 1994. Two conditions were attached to the MDNS related to traffic and stormwater runoff mitigation. The MDNS was not appealed. 7. A public hearing was held on this application on November 16, 1994. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the site, published in the newspaper and mailed to persons living near the site. The public hearing was attended by a representative of the City and the applicant. The City presented a recommendation to approve the rezone request. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. The applicant presented testimony in support of the rezone request. Testimony of Larry Ladum. No one testified or submitted any evidence against the rezone request nor did anyone raise any concerns or questions about the rezone request at the public hearing. All testimony and evidence presented prior to and during the public hearing supported approval of the rezone request. 2 Hearing Findings and Recommendation Ladum #RZ-94-2 CONCLUSIONS lurisdiction and Authority The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this quasi-judicial rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code. Section 15.09.050 (A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and criteria the Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a rezone shall only be granted if: a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity; C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated; d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone; e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner makes the following conclusions: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan CONCLUSION 1: The proposed rezone is consistent with the both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan. 1.1 Both plans recognize the transitional nature of the MA zoning designation. The purpose of that designation was to allow some control over how much multifamily development occurs. Both plans have designated the site as suitable for multifamily residential development. 1.2 The Examiner must also consider the policies of the comprehensive plans as well as the map designations. The City of Kent Council decided to develop a comprehensive plan as authorized by state law many years ago. See, Chapters 35.63 and 35A.63 RCW. According to state law, a comprehensive plan means "the policies and proposals approved by the 3 Hearing Findings and Recommendation Ladum #RZ-94-2 legislative body" in the manner set forth in state law. RCW 35A.63.010. This may include a map or maps, charts, diagrams, reports and explanatory text as well as "other devices and materials" to "express, explain or depict" the elements of the plan. RCW 35A.63.061 . The policies of the Valley Floor Plan include an overall housing goal to "preserve and expand existing residential neighborhoods located close to necessary public facilities and services" and to "guide new residential development into suitable areas on the Valley Floor." Exhibit 1, Planning Department Report, page 4. The proposed rezone is consistent with these policies. Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity CONCLUSION 2: The potential development associated with the rezone proposal would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone. The proposed rezone is in an area of multifamily residential housing development. The proposed rezone would be consistent with surrounding development. The type of development authorized under the proposed zone is more compatible with the existing development than is the type of development authorized under the current zone. The MA zone authorizes the processing of agricultural and horticultural products. This type of activity is not compatible with multifamily residential development that surrounds the site. Burden on Transportation System CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system 3.1 The traffic impacts associated with the potential development of the proposed rezone were reviewed by the City as part of the environmental review of the rezone proposal. The Planning Department evidence shows that traffic impacts associated with potential developments in the MRG zone can be mitigated at the time of the application for a specific development. Exhibit 1, (MDNS). Change of Circumstances CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the MA zone to warrant the proposed rezone. The subject property was annexed to the City in 1959 and was given the "MA" zoning designation in 1972. There has been significant changes in land use activity around the site since 1972. The proposed zoning designation reflects the multifamily growth that has occurred in the area. 4 Hearing Findings and Recommendation Ladum #RZ-94-2 Health Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone. No one presented any evidence of any nature against this rezone proposal. The Hearing Examiner must conclude that the proposed rezone would not have any adverse affect on anyone in the area surrounding the rezone. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City Council APPROVE this request for a rezone. It is the Examiner's opinion that the rezone request, as proposed, meets the criteria for approval established by the Council. Dated this 30th day of November, 1994. 7—H --?— Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. There is no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the rezone recommendation at a regularly scheduled public meeting within 30 days. c:rz942.fin 5 CITY OF CITY OF KENT KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 1994 3 : 00 PM FILE NO: LADUM REZONE #RZ-94-2 APPLICANT: Larry and Jacqueline Ladum REOUEST: A request to rezone approximately 4 acres of property from MA, Industrial Agricultural, to MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily Residential STAFF REPRESENTATIVE : Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 4 . 0 acres from the current zoning of MA, Industrial Agricultural, to MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily Residential . No specific development plans have been submitted as a part of the rezone request . B . Location The subject property is located at approximately 6300 South 236th Street . C. Size of Property The size of the subject property is approximately 4 . 0 acres . The configuration of the lot is long and narrow, measuring approximately 192 ' (width) by 900' (depth) . D. Zoning The subject site is bordered on the north, west, and south sides by MR-G zoning. The parcel to the east of the site is zoned MA. 1 Staff Report Ladum Rezone #RZ-94-2 E . Land Use The subject site is a remnant parcel wedged between the developing Lakes project and the recently completed Neeley-O' Brien Elementary School . Multifamily residential use at The Lakes borders the rezone site on its west and south sides . The elementary school borders the site on the east . The parcel to the north is presently vacant but is part of a future phase of The Lakes development . F. History The subject property was annexed into the City of Kent in 1959 as part of a 2, 990 acre annexation (Ordinance #1013) . The present MA zoning was applied to the property in 1973 as a result of a city-wide zoning project . II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the rezone was issued on April 21, 1994 (File #ENV-94-12) . Two conditions were applied to the MDNS related to traffic and stormwater mitigation. B . Significant Physical Features 1 . Topography and Vegetation The site is generally flat . Field grass and a few, small deciduous trees cover the site . C. Significant Social Features 1 . Street System The property has access to South 236th Street which is classified as a Residential Collector. The street has a public right-of-way width of 60 feet while the actual width of paving is 36 feet . The street is improved with 2 lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, stormwater drainage, sidewalks and street lighting. The average daily traffic count 2 Staff Report Ladum Rezone #RZ-94-2 on the street is less than 2500 vehicle trips per day. Traffic mitigation as a result of development of the site has been addressed through the environmental review process for the rezone . 2 . Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems An existing 8-inch water line and a 10-inch sanitary sewer line are available to serve the subject property. 3 . Stormwater System An on-site detention system and stormwater treatment system may be required at the time of development . 4 . LID' s There are no existing or proposed Local Improvement Districts for this property. 5 . Parks Several parks are located in the general vicinity of the rezone site, including Russell Road Park, Cottonwood Grove, and Riverbend Golf Course . The playfield at Neeley-O'Brien Elementary School is also open to the public for recreational purposes . III . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Department of Operations City Attorney Fire Chief City Clerk Chief of Police Development Services/Fire Prevention Director of Public Works Parks and Recreation Director In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. 3 Staff Report Ladum Rezone #RZ-94-2 IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan The City-wide Comprehensive Plan map designates the subject site as MF, Multifamily Residential . The proposed rezone site falls within the planning area of the Valley Floor Plan; this plan also designates the subject site as Multifamily. A rezone from Industrial Agricultural to Medium Density Multifamily is consistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies of the Valley Floor Plan: HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL 1 : Preserve and expand existing residential neighborhoods located close to necessary public facilities and services . GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into suitable areas on the Valley Floor. POLICY 2 : Permit and encourage multifamily residential development where necessary services are available . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT GOAL 1 , POLICY 6 : Rezoning of RA and MA land for more intensive use should occur contiguous to areas already having services, utilities and adequate roads available . Planning Department Comment : The City-wide and Valley Floor Plan maps both designate the subject site as Multifamily Residential . The policies of the Valley Floor Plan that apply to this application seem to encourage higher density multifamily residential use in areas where utilities and public services are already provided or can be provided at minimal public cost . The proposed rezone site is consistent with this policy. Water and sewer utilities are available to the site . Full street improvements have been made in the area. Public services are available . 4 Staff Report Ladum Rezone $#RZ-94-2 With existing multifamily use to the west and an elementary school to the east, the site represents an "in-fill" situation where multifamily use would be compatible with its surroundings . B . STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A REQUEST FOR REZONE According to Kent City Code Section 15 . 09 . 050 (C) , " . . . the following standards and criteria shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for rezone . Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria . " 1 . The proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Department Comment : As mentioned above under discussion in section IV.A, the proposed rezone is consistent with the City-wide and Valley Floor Plan maps, as well as the policies of the Housing and Economic Development elements of the Valley Floor Plan. 2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment : If developed to medium-density multifamily residential use, the proposed rezone site would be compatible with land in the area. The rezone site is bordered by existing multifamily development on the west and south sides . Future multifamily residential development is planned to the north. An existing elementary school is located adjacent to the east . 3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. 5 Staff Report Ladum Rezone #RZ-94-2 Planning Department Comment : The site has access directly to S . 236th Street, which is a fully improved street with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drainage facilities . This road currently has less than 2 , 500 vehicle trips per day. Mitigation of traffic impacts was also addressed during the environmental review process, and area-wide impacts were addressed through a corridor agreement for construction of the 224th Street arterial . In addition, public transportation is available on S . 236th Street near the subject site . 4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone . Planning Department Comment : The current MA zoning was applied to the subject property with the adoption of a new city-wide zoning ordinance in 1973 . Since that time, over 1, 000 units of multifamily development have been constructed at The Lakes, an adjacent master planned community approved in 1980 . The Neeley-O'Brien Elementary School was constructed on land to the east in 1992 . Other multifamily development has occurred to the east and south of the rezone site . Infrastructural improvements - i .e. , roads and utilities - have been constructed in the vicinity to meet the needs of a growing residential population. The industrial development anticipated by the MA zoning in 1973 has not occurred. Instead, the area surrounding the site has become residential in character, and built out in multifamily residences in the range of 16-20 units per acre . A rezone to MR-G would be compatible with recent development trends in the area. S . The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city. Planning Department Comment : The proposed rezone to MR-G will not adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare of citizens of the city. The environmental review for the proposed rezone concluded that no significant adverse impacts 6 Staff Report Ladum Rezone #RZ-94-2 which could not be mitigated would result from multifamily development on the site. The site is flat with no significant vegetation. A fully improved roadway provides access to the site, and utilities are adequate to serve future multifamily development . Existing, surrounding residential development has been built under MR-G zoning, the same zoning which is requested under this application. Therefore, the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of Kent . V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the code criteria for granting approval of a rezone, the staff recommends APPROVAL of the Ladum rezone #RZ-94-2 . KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT November S , 1994 c :rz942 .rpt 7 City of Kent - Planning Department S 226TH ST - J. w N ICu c _ z ~ J r m N IL 2 7] ~ 7 w IL > G S H N S 22aZN S 234TH ST J J w N N 7 S 238TH ST g p O JAME ST SRM ST Is Cn LP LLI LACZ 9 m � � w m x SMITH ST a m APPLICATION NAME: Ladum NUMBER: #RZ-94-2 DATE: October 19, 1994 November 16 , 19$4 RFQUEST: Rezone N LEGEND 4- Application site Vicinity Map s--=- Railroad tracks Kent City Limits City of Kent - Planning Department I � 7 ao l 1 , 0 =— © CD 0 S. 3161M. ST. , CIO - , � 00cr e , C=1 APPLICATION NAME: Ladum NUMBER: #RZ-94-2 DATE: October 19, 1994 November 16 , 19*4 REQUEST: Rezone N LEGEND Application site Zoning / Topography Zoning boundary Kent City Limits _7v/S Kent City Council Meeting Date January 17 . 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: MERIDIAN ANNEXATION - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This resolution establishes a policy to preserve and encourage single-family residential use as the predominant land use within the proposed Meridian Annexation area. Additionally, the resolution directs staff to implement this policy as part of the City's draft Comprehensive Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Resolution No. )-i )_� , establishing a policy to pre- serve and encourage single family use within the Meridian Annexation area. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4C qt RESOLUTION NO . A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the proposed Meridian Annexation, and establishing the Council ' s current policy with respect to zoning and land use within the annexation area . WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a potential annexation area in accordance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act, Chapter 36 . 70A, Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent ' s Draft Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations for the potential annexation area in compliance with the Growth Management Act ; and WHEREAS, certain interested persons are now circulating a petition to annex to the City of Kent an area generally known as the "Meridian Annexation" area, which annexation area is indicated on the attached map, marked Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Meridian Annexation area is located entirely within the City' s urban growth and potential annexation areas as defined under the Growth Management Act ; and WHEREAS, upon annexation, the City of Kent will assume responsibility to establish land use policies and zoning for the Meridian Annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . It shall be the policy of the Kent City Council to retain the Meridian Annexation area ' s predominately single family residential character upon annexation into the City of Kent . As provided in the City of Kent ' s Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area will be planned and zoned for predominately single family residential use, except in the commercial nodes at the intersections of Kent Kangley Road with 132nd Avenue S .E . and 152nd Avenue S .E. together with existing or vested multifamily uses, all of which are currently indicated on the City' s Draft Comprehensive Plan. Section 2 . City of Kent staff are hereby directed to present the Draft Comprehensive Plan in a form consistent with the policy stated in Section 1, along with any necessary technical corrections, for consideration and timely adoption by the Kent City Council in order that the Comprehensive Plan become effective with respect to proposed land use designations within the Meridian Annexation area . The Comprehensive Plan, once adopted, will serve as a guideline for zoning decisions within 2 _ the Meridian Annexation Area, should that area be annexed to the City of Kent . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1995 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1995 . JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 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 meridian.res 4 RESOLUTION NO . A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, relating to the proposed Meridian Annexation, and establishing the Council ' s current policy with respect to zoning and land use within the annexation area . WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a potential annexation area in accordance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act , Chapter 36 . 70A, Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent ' s Draft Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations for the potential annexation area in compliance with the Growth Management Act ; and WHEREAS, certain interested persons are now circulating a petition to annex to the City of Kent an area generally known as the "Meridian Annexation" area, which annexation area is indicated on the attached map, marked Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Meridian Annexation area is located entirely within the City' s urban growth and potential annexation areas as defined under the Growth Management Act ; and WHEREAS, upon annexation, the City of Kent will assume responsibility to establish land use policies and zoning for the Meridian Annexation area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . It shall be the policy of the Kent City Council to retain the Meridian Annexation area ' s predominately single family residential character upon annexation into the City of Kent . As provided in the City of Kent ' s Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area will be planned and zoned for predominately single family residential use, except in the commercial nodes at the intersections of Kent Kangley Road with 132nd Avenue S .E . and 152nd Avenue S .E. together with existing or vested multifamily uses , all of which are currently indicated on the City' s Draft Comprehensive Plan. Section 2 . City of Kent staff are hereby directed to present the Draft Comprehensive Plan in a form consistent with the policy stated in Section 1, along with any necessary technical corrections, for consideration and timely adoption by the Kent City Council in order that the Comprehensive Plan become effective and enforceable with respect to proposed land use and zoning within the Meridian Annexation area . The Comprehensive Plan, once adopted, will serve as a guideline for zoning 2 decisions within the Meridian Annexation Area, should that area be annexed to the City of Kent . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington this day of , 1995 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1995 . JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 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 meridian.res 4 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT i B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY CITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 75 K-�n Vv Olt 40 C", �CivvrTvJ PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JANUARY 9, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark May Miller Don Wickstrom Robert Taylor, MCI Metro Gary Gill Brian Lauler, MCI Metro ABSENT: Jim Bennett MCI Metro Franchise Agreement Brubaker introduced Robert Taylor and Brian Lauler as the representatives from MCI Metro. Brubaker stated that MCI Metro is a subsidiary of MCI and they have come to us to seek a city-wide street franchise for construction of a fibre optic cable loop a portion of which will pass thru the City of Kent. He said that the City has granted two similar franchises in the past to ELI and to MCI and those franchises are for 10 years. Brubaker explained that he has drafted a similar franchise for 10 years; it was presented to this committee in November and at that time Tim Clark posed a number of questions which the Committee felt should be directed specifically to the MCI Metro representatives. Brubaker explained that under State law, we are not allowed to impose a franchise fee for the operation of a telephone business and right now MCI Metro meets that definition. Therefore, he said, we cannot impose a franchise fee; the only thing that we can impose at this point in time is our reasonable costs for getting this franchise together and passed. Brubaker stated that the main concern, as he understands it, is that nobody really knows exactly how comprehensive or what opportunities will arise under this information highway concept; nobody really knows in the future what form or what product this business of fibre optic loops may deliver. He said that Tim Clark's concern is that if their business operation takes on a form that is other than a telephone business, that the City should have an opportunity to either revisit or renegotiate the franchise and possibly require a franchise fee or some other consideration for operation of that business in the City of Kent. Brubaker noted that we have a clause in our franchise that roughly addresses that issue however, having talked with Tim Clark, we might want to 'one-tune" it somewhat and take on two forms: one would be that it's a franchise that grants MCI the authority to lay fibre optic cable for the purpose of conducting a telephone business solely, therefore, if you came to do another type of business or expand your business beyond telephone business than you would have to come back for a separate franchise; or, we could grant it on a more expansive basis but include a clause that says "as soon as you upgrade anything other than a statutory telephone business than you must provide notice to the City of Kent' . 1 Brubaker said that another item that has come up, which he has dicussed with the City's Cable TV consultant, is, because this is such an unknown area, he (the consultant) suggested that we shorten the franchise term to 3 to 5 years. After discussing this with Brian Lauler and reviewing franchise they have with other cities, the terms came up to between 5 to 20 years. Brubaker said he would recommend changing the franchise term to 5 years with an automatic renewal provision for one additional 5 year term. He noted that prior to the automatic renewal that MCI Metro provide notice to the City that the time is coming due for renewal. Tim Clark stated that he would like an affirmation of what the type of business that MCI Metro intends to run off the franchise. Brian Lauler explained that MCI Metro is setting up a series of three loop networks in the central Puget Sound area and the purpose of those is to provide the high volume and high quality service for voice and data transmission; their customers will be essentially businesses that need a high quality and high volume transmission service. In response to Clark's question on data transmission, Lauler explained that it is electronic information that businesses send over the phone lines. Clark commented that there is a difference between trying to transmit bits which actually require a different type of machinery to try and translate data. He said that clearly, fibre optics allows for the transmission of some things that are not possible to transmit over copper wire, the least of which is images. He said the question becomes, what type of data are you attempting to transmit. Lauler again stated that it is business data; electronic information that banks, engineering firms etc. that have computer networks are sending data across their computer network. Clark stated that there is a big difference between using a phone modem to try and translate things that are basically characters within a particular system as opposed to trying to transmit things which are visual, i.e., an image. Clark asked where we are on this issue. Robert Taylor of MCI Metro explained that MCI Metro is really providing a service to its customers and its customers determine what their communication needs are. He reassured Clark that MCI is only providing the service of a communication link between our customer and whoever our customer is contacting. Clark stated that MCI Metro is asking for a right of way based on an industry that is undergoing change at this point in time - before we were talking about being a telephone competitor- now we are into the realm of trying to run a wide variety of businesses which are not possible under the old protected phone lines because, particularly fibre optics is clearly a different ballgame. Clark stated that MCI Metro is asking for the right for a franchise based on being competitive with other telephone companies which are protected under state law as telephone companies; but, in fact what you are describing as your service does not involve a telephone, it requires entirely different types of machinery because it is an entirely different set of services. Lauler responded by saying they are providing an alternative to service that is existing now and it is a transmission service. Clark stated that transmission service for phone is not the same as what it is over fibre optic cable and the franchise 2 you're asking for is to compete with the phone company. Lauler stated that this franchise request is coming out of the authority granted by the UTC last spring to be a competitive access provider which is the linkage between a business and the long distance carrier without going thru US West. Further discussion followed relating to competitive business and service needs in different locations, and whether or not this is something that is in fact, not an exclusive service. Claris stated that it doesn't fit the definition of a telephone company - however, Brubaker stated that the exclusive monopoly aspect is not part of the statutory definition. It was the Committee's recommendation that Brubaker reconstruct this franchise agreement as was discussed and present it again at the next Public Works Committee meeting (January 23rd). Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement/King County Wickstrom explained that Clark Springs, is 13 miles east; (Kent Kangley goes thru there for approximately 1 mile) - several years back our attorneys told us that it was our road. This road needs an overlay and the County is doing both the east end and the west end in their project and they want us to do our portion -we budgeted money however their cost estimate is above what we had anticipated. The County has estimated high and hopefully, with good bids we will be within our budget plus it gives us the option to drop out if after the bids open, we determine we don't have enough money. Wickstrom said we are asking for the Mayor to sign the Agreement for this. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the Asphalt Overlay Inter-Agency Agreement with King County, upon the City Attorney's review and approval. Carnaby Street Sidewalks - Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this is a completed construction project and it is before the Committee because the actual cost ran slightly over 10% of the original bid amount primarily due to more extensive restoration of the properties than was anticipated. Wickstrom stated that there isn't any problem with funding - there are adequate funds in the overall project fund. Mann noted that the following items for acceptance are all over budget. Wickstrom explained that if a project is over 10%, they are presented to Committee for approval which has become a "rule of thumb" on project acceptances - under 10% they go directly to Council. He also noted that all of the projects have adequate funding. 3 Committee unanimously recommended that the Carnaby Street Sidewalks project be _. accepted as complete. Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I- Accept as Complete Wickstrom noted that this project has similar conditions - in this case it was a rehab project. In this project an old sidewalk was found under the existing sidewalk which became a cost item to the contractor. He said the downtown area is old and it was difficult to anticipate many conditions. This lead to a higher cost for the project than was anticipated. Committee unanimously recommended that the Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase I project be accepted as complete. Derbyshire Watermain Replacement - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that on this project, the material was extemely poor and we ended up using more asphalt. The County wanted us to overlay the entire road and to avoid that, they restricted us to 3' of the shoulder and more imported material was required. Asa result, this increased the cost of the project. Committee unanimously recommended that the Derbyshire Watermain Replacement project be accepted as complete. LID 342 - Smith Street Sidewalks - Accept as Complete Wickstrom stated that this project exceeded the bid amount primarily due to landscaping problems which we felt we could remold the landscape area. However, there were significant trees involved and the end result was that it was necessary to build a retaining wall which we felt would preserve the landscaping as well as keep the public relations with the neighbors. Committee unanimously recommended that the LID 342 Smith Street Sidewalks project be accepted as complete. Added items: 4 Storm Drainage Code - Revision Brubaker said that he has received a request from the Construction Engineer to amend the Surface Water and Drainage Code wherein we would require a one year maintenance bond rather than a two year maintenance bond. Brubaker stated that the City typically requires a one year maintenance bond on almost all improvements; the two year maintenance bond requirement causes problems within the City staff and also, some developers try to get one bond to cover all their bonding requirements. Also it has been the City's experience that a one year bond is sufficient. Committee unanimously recommended that Chapter 7.07 of the Kent City Code be amended dealing with bonds, and to change it from a two year maintenance period to a one year period. LID 327 & LID 330 Segregations - Resolution Revision Brubaker stated that a flaw was discovered in the City's communication with Birtcher Frank Properties (Van Doren's Landing) on the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. He explained that the method used for computing the segregation used by Birtcher Frank was different from the method that the City understood them to be using. Therefore, there is a disparity in the numbers. Brubaker requested permission to present to Council two separate Resolutions - one for LID 327 and one for LID 330 that would essentially fix the flaw and in the process, combine the existing assessments applicable to this Birtcher Frank Property since it is under one ownership now, into one assessment. As a result, from this point forward, there will be a very clear formula to use. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the City Attorney to draw up two Resolutions clarifying the recent segregation of assessments on LID 327 and LID 330. Meeting adjourned: 5:20 p.m. 5