Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 02/04/1997
q::q It CKent o Meetin, Ct Counuiillll 3 �€€ifz 7 tti! 0 JJ Fkfi'i' E i 11 E 1j i.dtii i Aglawnda E, �a i e 1" 1 li, r� ; CITY OF" iri E t i } 9E jy!yE)E 6 White Mayor Jim 'I "�'h f Council members i ,Christi Houlser, President ;€ . � Jim Bennett Jon Johnson Tim Clark Leona Orr i " Epperly Judy Woods t Connie t 1 a 7 i€ i. Rsi € ji February 4, 1997 i f i 3 E {s{1 i office of the City, Cierk i E11 I t Iij CITY OF SUMMARY AGENDA asau� KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 41 1997 Council Chambers 7: 00 p.m. MAY Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Christi Houser, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Connie Epperly Jon Johnson Leona Orr Judy Woods CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Boy Scout Week'' B. Proclamation — Daughters of the Americana'' Revolution/American History Month C. Introduction of Mayor's Appointee s D. Employee of the Month � E. Arts Commission 1997 Community Grant Awards "' F. Lighthouse Steering Committee Report & Presentation 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. � Approval of Minutes B.'' Approval of Bills C. Disabled Parking - Ordinance D. Medical Physicals Contract - Authorization E. S. 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) -Condemnation Authorization - Ordinance F." Boxmaker - Bill of Sale G. Fox Ridge (AKA Lukes Run) - Bill of Sale H. , LEEP Grant - Acceptance I. ,, Transit Advisory Board - Appointment 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. , Del Mar Annexation - AN-97-1 5. BIDS A. ' Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing 6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS � I 8. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is availafble 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 - Boy Scout Week B) Proclamation - Daughters of the American Revolution/American History Month C) Introduction of Mayor's Appointee D) Employee of the Month E) Arts Commission 1997 Community Grant Awards F) Lighthouse Steering Committee Report & Presentation CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . city council Action): Councilmember 4 L moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through �Y be approved. Discussion Action } � � 4t�e L 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the workshop and the regular Council meeting of January 21, 1997 . 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through January 15 and paid on January 14 and 15, 1997 , after auditing by the Council at the January 21 Council meeting. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/14/97 178675-179043 $1, 677 , 319. 63 1/15/97 179044-179129 665, 012 .20 $2 , 342 , 331. 83 Approval of checks issued for payroll for January 1 through January 15, 1997 and paid on January 17 , 1997: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/17/97 Checks 216915-217251 $ 273 , 316. 04 1/17/97 Advices 42011-42525 679 , 625. 80 $ 952 , 941. 84 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington l January 21, 1997 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7: 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Parks Director Hodgson, Finance Director Miller, and Employee Services Director Viseth. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. The flag salute was led by the Campfire Boys and Girls Adventure Group Troop 6210. PUBLIC GFOA Distinguished Budget Award. Mayor White COMMUNICATIONS announced that the City of Kent has received the prestigious Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. He explained that in order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, an operations guide, a financial plan and a communications device. He presented the award to Financial Planning Manager Cliff Craig. Craig said that a great deal of help was provided by all departments. Finance Director Miller com- mended the departments and the budget staff on their efforts. Introduction of Mavor's Appointees. Mayor White introduced David Malik and Sharon Woodford, his appointees to the Land Use and Planning Board. Regional Justice Center Update. Tom Brown displayed a photograph of the site and noted that the project is within scope and within budget. He explained that a punchlist has been done for nine of the fourteen housing units, that many inspections have been completed, that various types of training have begun, that the parking structure has been painted and striped, and that furnishings, computers and telecommunications equipment are being installed. He pointed out that executed change orders amount to 2% of the project and potential change orders may add an additional 1%, which is substantial on a project of over $100 million. Brown pointed out the artwork integrated into the front lawn, and said the light standards have been installed. He noted that the front sidewalk and the stair work is nearly complete, as is the front exterior of the detention area. He said 1 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 PUBLIC the substantial completion date is still mid- COMMUNICATIONS March, and that next month he will outline the upcoming ceremonial events. CONSENT HOUSER MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through R be approved, with the exception of Item Q which was removed. Orr seconded and the motion carried unanimously. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 7 , 1997 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) SANITATION Kent Biomedical. ACCEPT the bill of sale for Kent Biomedical Building submitted by Island Property Management for continuous operation and maintenance of 365 feet of street improvements, 204 feet of storm sewers and release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 104th Avenue S.E. & S.E. 248th Street. SEWERS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) 1996 Miscellaneous Sanitary Sewer Extensions and Decant Station. ACCEPT the 1996 Miscellaneous Sanitary Sewer Extensions & Decant Station pro- ject as complete and release retainage to King Construction Co. , Inc. upon standard releases from the state, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $322 , 043 . 92 . The final construction cost was $226 , 648 . 21. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) LID 345 - S. 218th Street Improvements. ACCEPT the LID 345 - South 218th Street Improvements project as complete and release retainage to Robison Construction upon standard releases from the state, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $582 , 438 . 38 . The final construction cost was $612 , 049 . 97 . (BIDS - ITEM 5A) LID 347 - Meeker Street/Russell Road Roadway and Sianalization Improvements. Bid opening for this project was held on January 13th with six bids received. The low bid was submitted by Mer-Con, Inc. of Maple Valley in the amount of $69 , 769. 15 . 2 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 l STREETS The Engineer's estimate was $100, 216.25. The project consists of constructing a right turn pocket on Russell Road and a new signal system complete at Meeker Street and Russell Road, along with rechannelization along Meeker Street. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the LID 347 Meeker Street/Russell Road Roadway and Signalization Improvements contract be awarded to Mer-Con, Inc. for the bid amount of $69,769 . 15. Upon the Mayor' s question, Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that the material should be installed and operational within two to three months. Clark explained that traffic flow on the bridge over the Green River is the problem and that this is the first of several changes being made to alleviate that. HE THEN MOVED that the LID 347 Meeker/Russell Roadway and Signalization Improvement contract be awarded to Mer-Con, Inc. for the bid amount of $69 , 769 . 15. Woods seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) Mill Creek Box Culverts. ACCEPT the Mill Creek Box Culverts project as complete and release retainage to Tri-State Construction upon standard releases from the state, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $701, 937 . The final construction cost was $682 ,491. 50. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) Upper Garrison Creek Conveyance Improvements. ACCEPT the Upper Garrison Creek Conveyance Improvements project as complete and release retainage to M. Liffrig Construction Co. , Inc. upon standard releases from the state, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The original contract amount was $123 , 125. 65 . The final construction cost $124 , 272 . 14 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P) Pioneer and Central Avenue Signal. AUTHORIZATION to transfer $23 , 000 from the 104th & 256th Street Improvement project (#R37) fund to the Central Ave. & Pioneer Signal project fund, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee. The project cost is estimated at approximately 3 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 PUBLIC WORKS $50, 000. ISTEA funds of $27, 000 exist within the project budget. SURPLUS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) VEHICLES surglus Vehicles. DECLARE certain Equipment Rental vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State auction, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. COMP PLAN/ (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) ZONING MAP 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Mau Changes. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3331 relat- ing to Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-96-3 (A) , CPA-96-3 (B) , CPA-96-3 (E) , CPA-96-3 (F) , CPA-96-3 (G) , and adoption of Ordinance No. 3332 related to Zoning Map Changes CPZ-96-11 CPZ-96-2 , and CPZ-96-5. These ordinances amend the Comprehensive Plan's land use map designations and the Zoning Map designations of three parcels of property more specifically identified in the ordinances, as well as amend the Capital Facilities Element and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R) (ADDED BY OPERATIONS DIRECTOR MCFALL) Del Mar Annexation. SET the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. , February 4, 1997 , as the date to meet with the initiating parties of the proposed Del Mar Annexation to determine: Whether to accept, reject, or geographically modify the proposed annexation; and Whether to require the simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation as provided for by state law; and Whether to require the assumption of all or any portion of the City' s existing indebtedness within the annexation area. PLANNING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) Administrative Variance Procedures ZCA-96-7. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3333 amending the Kent Zoning Code to establish administrative variance procedures, expand the use of joint use of parking facilities, implement new transit and 4 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 PLANNING rideshare provisions and increase the maximum allowable size of detached accessory dwelling units that can be converted from existing accessory buildings. MAYOR (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q) SALARY (REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER BENNETT) 1998 Mayor's Salary change. The Operations Committee has recommended adoption of an ordinance adjusting the salary of the Mayor to $80, 000 per year, effective January 1, 1998. Before discussion on this item began, Councilmember Orr explained that she will probably seek this office and that it may not be appropriate for her to take part in a discussion of the salary. She then excused herself from the room. Bennett noted that he has been in support of raising the salary to $80, 000, but that informa- tion containing a figure of $85, 000 had been distributed at an Operations Committee meeting. It was noted that the figure shown in the agenda packet and in the ordinance is $80, 000. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3334 relating to the 1998 Mayor's salary change. Houser seconded and the motion carried. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) Land Use and Planning Board. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Sharon Woodford and reappointment of David Malik to serve as members of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Ms. Woodford is a life-long Kent resident and has lived on Kent' s West Hill since 1990. She was employed at the Boeing Company for ten years. Ms. Woodford' s appointment will continue to 12/31/1999 . Mr. Malik' s reappointment will continue until 12/31/99 . PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) RECREATION Russell Road Restroom Partitions. ACCEPT the Russell Road Restroom Project as complete and dispense retainage to contractor Foster Bray upon receipt of standard releases from the state, as recommended by the Parks Department. 5 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 MAINTENANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Centennial Center Tenant Improvements. APPROVAL of a change order for Centennial Center tenant improvements for Valley Cities for $14, 604 . 04 plus sales tax, as recommended by the Operations Committee at their January 15th meeting. EMPLOYEE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) SERVICES Sick Leave Incentive Program (Non-Represented Employees) . IMPLEMENTATION of a sick leave incentive program for non-represented employees. There is no financial impact in 1997 as the first incentive payments would be made in January 1998 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Health Insurance Contract (Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska) . APPROVAL of Administra- tive Services Agreement with Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska. This is a renewal of the ongoing contract for health insurance claims processing and administrative services. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through December 31, 1996 and paid on January 1, 1997, after auditing by the Council at the January 7, 1997 Council meeting. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 1/1/97 177893-178674 $3 , 033 , 119 . 13 Approval of checks issued for payroll for December 16 through December 31, 1996 and paid on January 3 , 1997 : Date Check Numbers Amount 1/3/97 Checks 216638-216914 $ 273 , 316. 04 1/3/97 Advices 41540-42010 596 , 164 . 59 $ 869 , 480 . 63 REPORTS Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the Committee will meet on February 5th at 3 : 30 p.m. 6 Kent City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 REPORTS Planning Committee. Orr noted that there will be a special meeting of the Committee on February 4th at 4: 00 p.m. to discuss the Mixed Use Zoning issue, and invited any interested Councilmembers to attend. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7: 20 p.m. Brenda Jac er, CMC City Clerk 7 Kent, Washington January 21, 1997 A workshop on the Downtown Strategic Plan was held at 6: 00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Bennett, Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods. Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that the City has received a $150, 000 grant from the State to help with the Downtown Action Plan and named the consultant, subcontractor, and market analysis agent who were chosen to do it. He added that a task force has been created by the Mayor. John Owen of MAKERS and Julie Blakeslee of BRW reviewed the process and schedule. Owen noted that three alternatives have been developed. He outlined each of the alternatives, pointing out the location and showing illustrations. Linda Phillips of the Planning Department noted that they will hold a workshop on the alternatives at 7 : 00 p.m. on February 5th at Kent Commons, after which analysis will take place and another workshop on the preferred alternative will be held. She explained that a proposed plan is required by June. Satterstrom noted that they are trying to incorporate the analysis of impacts for a Regional Transit Authority station, so that future decisions can be made as expeditiously as possible. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 45 p.m. Brenda Jacot a CMC City Clerk Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DISABLED PARKING - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.3 3 35 , which increases the penalty amount for unauthorized parking in a disabled parking zone from fifty dollars ($50) to one hundred seventy-five dollars ($175) . This increase was authorized to be consistent with state law, which was recently amended to provide the same increased penalty. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C I, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 9.38.090 of the Kent City Code relating to penalties for unauthorized parking in spaces designated for physically disabled persons. WHEREAS. RCW 46.16.381 imposes a $175.00 penalty for anvone who parks a vehicle in a parking place reserved for physically disabled persons wihtout the appropriate license plate or placard; and WHEREAS; the City Council desires to amend the Kent City code to be consistent with State law relating to the penalty for these parking violations; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, DOES I HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Subsection "C"' of Section 9.38.090 of the Kent Cite Code is amended as follows: See. 9.38.090. Parking reserved for physically disabled, penalty. A. It is a traffic infraction for any person to park a vehicle in a parkin_ I place reserved for physically disabled persons pursuant to RCW ch. 70.92 or authorin- implemental thereof, without a special license plate. card or decal as provided in RCW vision shall be enforceable on private property open to the 46.16.381, as amended. This pro P 1 'i I, general public as well as on streets and government owned property. A person charged with a violation shall not be determined to have committed an infraction if he produces in court or prior to the court appearance a special license plate. special card or special decal required by RCW 46.16.381 or demonstrates that he was entitled to the same at the time of being ticketed. B. Physically disabled parking is reserved on public streets in the city at the following locations: 1. Harrison Street at the crosswalk between Fourth Avenue and Second Avenue. 2. Second Avenue South between Gowe Street and Titus Street on the west side of Second Avenue. 3. Titus Street between First Avenue and Second Avenue South on the north side of First Avenue. C. Any violation of this section shall be an infraction and punishable by a monetary penalty of€ice one hundred seventy-five dollars ($�9.90 175.00). Vehicles in violation are subject to impoundment as provided by law. SECTION 2. If any one or more sections. subsections. or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid. such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION3. 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 i I I i ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY I PASSED: day of 1997. APPROVED: day of , 1997. PUBLISHED: day of , 1997. 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 p U,Lm mrdinanc`,parkmglord Xk Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: MEDICAL PHYSICALS CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Medical Examinations Services Contract with Occupational Health Services Valley Medical Center. The Fire Department solicits RFP' s for medical physicals every three (3) years, which enables costs to be kept at a minimum. RFP' s were received from Occupational Health Services Valley Medical Center and Multicare Healthworks for the years 1997 through 1999 . After reviewing the RFP' s (for services, responsiveness, flexibility, scheduling, cost and program management) , it is recommended that the RFP be awarded to Occupational Health Services Valley Medical Center. The contract has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney' s office as to form. 3 . EXHIBITS: Comparison of RFP' s fee schedules and executive summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Norm Angelo Fire Chief and Public Safety Committee (3-0) - (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Estimated $46 624 in budget SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY JANUARY 28, 1997 TO: CITY OF KENT COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: MEDICAL PHYSICALS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION/PROPOSAL. OBJECTIVE The current contract for medical examinations between Occupational Health Services Valley Medical Center and Kent Fire Department expired December 31, 1996. This summary will recommend the selection of a medical facility for Fire Department physicals. BACKGROUND Medical examinations are required by the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Kent and Kent Firefighters Local 1747, I.A.F.F., Section 13.8. The Kent Fire Department has utilized Occupational Health Services, Valley Medical Center for several contract terms. During this time period they have met our requirements for providing employees medical examinations for the purposes of pre-employment, annual, and haz mat physicals. The current contract expired December 31,1996. In November 1996, we requested and received proposals for conducting medical examinations, as solicited by our request for proposals. We received proposals from Occupational Health Services, Valley Medical Center and Multi Care Healthworks for the years 1997 through 1999. Battalion Chief Mike Scott and Battalion Chief Pat Dale have evaluated these proposals based on services provided, responsiveness, flexibility, scheduling, cost, program management and interviews with program managers Gayle Van Alstyne, RN, Multicare Healthworks and Jody Mahoney, Accounts Manager, Occupational Health Services, Valley Medical Center, respectively. RECOMMENDED ACTION Battalion Chiefs Scott and Dale and Fire Administration recommends that the Kent Fire Department enter into a contract for services, for the purpose of conducting medical examinations for pre-employment, annual, and hazardous material team members with Occupational Health Services, Valley Medical Center. This contract will be for a period of three (3) years, beginning in 1997 through the year 1999. SIGNIFICANCE Entering into this agreement with Occupational Health Services, Valley Medical Center will provide the examinations necessary to fulfill collective bargaining agreements for our employees. Additionally, health and wellness information will be provided to our employees through this service. BUDGET IMPACT Projected annual expenditures are as follows: Approximately 70 annual physicals $ 32,830.00 Approximately 6 annual physicals With stress ekg 3,714.00 Approximately 15 pre-employment physicals 10,575.00 Approximately 18 haz mat physicals 10,080.00 Total $ 46,624.00 *Expenditures based on examination needs as outlined in age and risk schedule as adopted by our Department. MEDICAL RFP 1997.1999 COMPARISON BASE PROPOSAL OPTIONS MULTI-CARE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MULTI CARE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH EMPLOYMENT EXAMINATION 53500 53300 DRUG SCREEN $45.00 PHYSICAL 550.00 STRENGTH 8 FLEXIBILITY TESING 50.00 $50.00 AUDIOGRAM 525.00 520.00 SPIROMETRY 54500 $4500 VISION TESTING $0.00 50.00 BLOOD CHEMISTRY.CSC 8 LIPID PROFILE $46.00 $50.00 URINALYSIS $6.00 $10.00 50.00 SR.00 540.00 CARBON MONOXIDE LEVEL 90.00 SIC 00 $17.00 VDRL 50.00 50.00 PA 8 LATERAL CHEST X-RAY $68 00 S55 00 THORACIC SPINE 2 VIEW $99,00 $70.00 LUMBAR SPINE 2 VIEW 564.00 $50.00 CERVICAL SPINE 2 VIEW 56600 550.00 RESTING EKG $6000 $4500 MAXIMAL EKG(STRESS) SO 00 $0 00 S13'00 $150 00 PHYSICAL CAPACITIES EVALUATION $75.00 SO 00 • BODY FAT DETERMINATION $800 $20.00 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT $000 50.00 $1500 52500 HEAVY METALS SCR EN 512600 $85.00 TUBERCULIN SKIN TEST $13.00 $12.00 FOLLOW UP VISIT $0,00 50.00 BLOOD DRAW 50.00 51500 NO SHOW 8HR CANCEL MIN 5000 55000 TOTAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAMINATION 5786.00 5705.00 5954 00 $937.00 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TEAM EXAMINATION PHYSICAL $50.00 $45.00 STRENGTH 8 FLEXIBILITY TESTING 5000 $50.00 AUDIOGRAM $25.00 $2000 SPIROMETRY $45.00 $4500 VISION TESTING $000 2000 SLOOC CHEMISTRY,CBC 8 LIPID PROFILE 54600 $50.00 URINALYSIS $6.00 51000 CARBON MONOXIDE LEVEL $1 50.00 5000 1000 51100 00 $40.00 VORL 50.00 50.00 OCCULT BLOOD $900 $10.00 PA 6 LATERAL CHEST X-RAY $66.00 555.00 RESTING EKG $60.00 $4500 MAXIMAL EKG(STRESS) 5000 $0.00 $1JLC0 $150.00 PHYSICAL CAPACITIES EVALUATION $7500 $0.00 BODY FAT EVALUATION 58.00 S20 00 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 5000 $0.00 $1500 $25.CO HEAVY METALS SCREEN 5130.'O $85.00 FOLLOW UP VIST 5000 $0.00 CHCLINESTERASE $3500 560.00 BLOOD DRAW $000 $1500 NO SHOW 8HR CANCEL.MIN 9000 $50.00 TOTAL HAZ MAT EXAMINATION S557 50 $56000 S715 50 5792 00 ANNUAL EXAMINATION PHYSICAL $50.00 $4500 STRENGTH B FLEXIBILITY TEST $000 $50.00 AUDIOGRAM $75 00 520.00 SPIROMETRY $4500 $45.00 VISION TESTING S0 G0 50.00 BLOOD CHEMISTRY WICBC 3 LIPID FROFIL 54600 $50,00 URINALYSIS 56.00 510.00 CARBON MONOXIDE LEVEL 5000 5000 $12.00 $40.00 VDRL 50.00 50.00 51000 517.00 OCCULT BLOOD 59,00 51Q00 PA 8 LATERAL CHEST X-RAY $68 00 $55.00 RESTING EKG 56000 545.00 MAXIMAL EKG(STRESS) 50.00 $000 S13L00 $15000 PHYSICAL CAPACITIES EVALUATION 575.00 SO 00 BODY FAT EVALUATION 58 OC $20,00 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 5000 50.00 51500 525.00 TUBERCULIN SKIN TEST 51300 S12.00 COLON CANCER SCREEN 5164 00 CASE BY CASE BASIS PROSTATE CANCER SCREEN 53700 $4200 FOLLOW UP VISIT 5000 50.00 BLOOD DRAW $000 $15 00 NO SHOW 8HR CANCEL MIN $000 $5000 TOTAL ANNUAL EXAMINATION $606.00 546900 F77400 570100 �/x Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 . 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: S. 196TH STREET CORRIDOR (WEST LEG) - CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 33367, authorizing the condemnation of a portion of certain proper- ties adjacent to S. 200th St. as part of the City's proposed S. 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) . The City has been unsuccessful thus far in negotiations with three of the property owners adjacent to the S. 196th Corridor (West Leg) to obtain the right-of-way easements along this Corridor project. As such, it has been recommended by the Public Works Committee to authorize condemnation on these three properties, should staff fail to reach a settlement with these owners. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works Director minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works 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 DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E i I I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the acquisition of right-of-way easements for any and all street purposes along, across, over and under certain properties in order to construct, extend, improve, alter and widen South 196th/200th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Orillia Road; providing for the payment thereof out of the 196th Street Corridor—West Leg—Project Fund (Fund R-82); providing for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of such property rights as necessary therefor; and directing the City Attorney to prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings and to enter into settlements, stipulations or other agreements; all of said properties located within King County, Washington. THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . The public convenience, use and necessity demand that the City of Kent ("City") condemn, appropriate, take and damage portions of certain real property parcels located in King County, Washington, in order to acquire right-of-way, slope, aerial and other necessary easements for any and all street and other related purposes. These parcels are legally described in Exhibits A through F, attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Properties"). The purposes for which this condemnation is authorized shall include, without limitation, all acts necessary to complete the construction, extension, improvement, alteration and widening of South 196th/200th Street, including improvements for drainage, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, illumination, signal improvements, electrical facilities, utilities, utility adjustments and relocations, and any other street or municipal purposes that may become necessary from time to time on the Properties. 1 II� II Section 2. In accordance with the terms and conditions of Motion No. 9811 the King County Council and to the City's agreement with Metropolitan King County dated May 9, 1996, the City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a part of the Properties for the construction, extension, improvement, alteration and widening of South 196th/200th Street between West Valley Highway (SR 181) and Orillia Road. Section 3. The City shall condemn the Properties only after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by: law. i Section 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this Ordinance through the City's "196th Street—West Leg— Corridor Fund," (Fund R82) or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be provided by law. Section 5. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Properties. In commencing these condemnation procedures, the City authorizes the City Attorney to enter into settlements, stipulations or agreements in order to minimize damages, which settlements, i stipulations or agreements may include, but not be limited to, the amount of just I compensation to be paid, the size and dimensions of the Properties condemned, construction easements and other property interests. Section 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are ratified and confirmed. Section 7. 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 circumstanc 2 I i shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1997. APPROVED the _ day of 1997- PUBLISHED the _ day of 1997. i I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK tcb-c\CONDEM 1 Tpwk 1 I Order No . 155309 tZ. A.L:T .A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows : PARCEL A: That portion of Government Lot 6 , Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East , W.M. , in King County,, Washington, lying easterly of Old Orilla Road (51st Place South) and north of South 200th Street ; EXCEPT portion thereof conveyed to King County for realignment of Orilla Road by deed recorded under Recording Number 6016781 ; (ALSO KNOWN AS a portion of Tracts 105 and 106 , Angle Lake Shore Division Number 2 , according to the unrecorded plat thereof) . PARCEL B : The west 37 rods of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East , W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT those portions thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes under Recording Numbers 1168064 , 2751663 and 6016780 ; AND EXCEPT portion conveyed to the State of Washington for Primary State Highway No . 1 by deed recorded under Recording Number 5191889 ; AND EXCEPT that portion lying northwesterly of 51st Place South. EXHIBIT The west 160 feet of the east 709 . 5 feet of the south 240 feet cf the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East , W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the west 20 feet thereof ; AND EXCEPT any portion of the county road, if any, that lies within the land hereinabove described. EXHIBIT F Order No . 155313 }� A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows : PARCEL A: That portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast cruarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows : Commencing at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of said section; thence north along the easterly line thereof 33 feet to the northerly line of South 200th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing northerly along the east line of said northeast quarter to the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said section; thence westerly 709 . 5 feet, more or less , along the south line of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner of a tract of land deeded to the Seattle and Walla Walla Railroad and Transportation Company by deed recorded April 10 , 1873 in Volume 9 of Dees , page 42 ; thence southerly along the east line of said tract to the north line of South 200th Street ; thence east along the north line of said South 200th Street to the point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion of said premises lying within a portion of the west half of the northwest quarter of Section 2 and of the east half of the northeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 NOrth, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, being more particularly described as follows : Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 2 , proceed south O1009 , 08 " east , 1392 . 41 feet along the west line of Section 2 , to the point of beginning; thence south 88045119" east , 145 . 55 feet to the southwest corner of the M. A. Segale property as shown on the recorded Survey Number 7707280568 , filed in Volume 4 of Surveys on Page 239 , records of King County, Washington; thence south 11041 ' 30" west , 352 . 30 feet ; thence south 78009 ' 50" west , 236 . 01 feet ; thence north 29000 ' 00" west, 99 . 12 feet ; thence north 11026135" east, 51 . 27 feet ; thence north 36052133 " east , 324 . 55 feet to the point of beginning; ALSO EXCEPT the west 160 feet of the east 709 . 5 feet of the south 240 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East , W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the west 20 feet thereof ; AND EXCEPT any portion of the county road, if any, that lies within the land hereinabcve described. (legal description, continued) EXHIBIT C-2-(_Y45') Order No . 155313 — 5 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued: PARCEL B : Government Lot 9 , in Section 2 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof lying west of the following described line : Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 2 ; thence south 01109 ' 08" east 1392 . 41 feet along the west line of said Section to the point of beginning; thence south 88045 ' 19" east 145 . 55 feet ; thence south 11041130" west 352 . 30 feet; thence south 78009150" west 68 . 29 feet , more or less, to the west line of said Section 2 and the terminus of said line; AND EXCEPT county roads . Order No . 155323 — /S A. L.T .A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows : Government Lot 8 , Section 2 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the south 40 feet thereof to King County for roadway as recorded under Recording Number 258128 ; AND EXCEPT the north 22 . 8 feet thereof to King County for roadway as recorded under Recording Number 1731274 ; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof condemned under King County Superior Court Cause Number 47302 for drainage ditches by the Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No . 2 of King County, Washington; AND TOGETHER WITH that portion of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows : Commencing at the northeast corner of said southeast quarter of Section 3 , (said point also being the northwest corner of Government Lot 8 in Section 2 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W. M. , in King County, Washington) ; thence south 00030145/1 east along the east line of said southeast quarter of Section 3 , a distance of 22 . 8 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence south 89/54102/1 west along a line 22 . 8 feet south of and parallel to the east-west centerline of said Section 3 , a distance of 711 . 96 feet ; thence south 00025136/1 east , a distance of 1264 . 25 feet to a point 40 feet north of the south line of said northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3 ; thence north 89040100/1 east along a line 40 feet north of and parallel to the south line of said northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, a distance of 713 . 84 feet to the east line of said southeast quarter of Section 3 ; thence north 00030145/1 west along said east line , a distance of 1262 . 59 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT those portions thereof condemned under King County Superior Court Cause No . 47302 for drainage ditches by the Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No . 2 of King County, Washington . EXHIBITI. Order No. 155327— / 9 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows: PARCEL A: Beginning at a point which is 412 . 5 feet south and 1930. 5 feet east from the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; running thence south 875 feet, more or less, to the north marginal line of the road; thence west 746 feet; thence north 875 feet, more or less, to a point which is west of the point of beginning; thence east 746 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the northerly 424. 1 feet of the southerly 822 . 5 feet of the west 150 feet; AND EXCEPT roads and drainage ditches, if any. PARCEL B: Beginning at a point which is 412 . 5 feet south and 1184. 5 feet east from the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; thence west 106 feet; thence north 190 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the east marginal line of county road; thence southwesterly along said marginal 'line 320 feet, more or less; thence east 226 feet; thence north 115 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL C: Beginning at the east quarter corner of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; running thence south 89011 ' 16" west along the north 'Line of the southeast quarter of said Section 3 , a distance of 723 . 80 feet; thence south 1011 ' 00" east 30 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing south 1011 ' 00" east 382 . 52 feet; thence south 89011 ' 06" west 841 . 5 feet; thence north 1011 ' 00" west 27 feet; thence north 89011 ' 06" east 120 feet; thence northeasterly 138 feet to a point which is 616. 92 feet west and 254 feet south of the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXHIBIT. Z ������ ( legal description, continued) Order No. 155327 9 A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued: thence north 1°11 ' 00" west 254 feet; thence north 89*llt06" east 616. 92 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT portion thereof described as follows : Beginning at the northeast corner of the above described tract; thence south 1011 ' 00" east 300 feet; thence south 89011 ' 06" west parallel with the north line of said tract, 220 feet; thence north 1°11 ' 00" west 300 feet to the south line of said tract; thence north 89111' 06" east 220 feet to the point of beginning. Order No. 155328 �ZO A. L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the county of King, state of Washington, and described as follows: That portion of the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 3 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point south 89011 ' 6" west 1, 565 . 30 feet and south 1011 ' east 385 . 52 feet of the east quarter corner; thence north 1011' west 171 . 01 feet; thence north 10°39 ' 6" east 137 . 87 feet; thence north 46052 ' 13" east 73 . 354 feet; thence north 89°11 ' 6" east 144 feet, more or less, to a point which is south 89011 ' 06" west 1, 340 . 72 feet and south 1011 ' 00" east 30 feet from said east quarter corner; thence south 1011 ' east 254 feet; thence southwesterly 138 feet to a point 120 feet east of the point of beginning; thence south 89011 ' 6" west 120 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion for Orilla Road. EXHIBIT M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS January 14, 1997 TO: Public Works Commi tee FROM: Don Wickstro RE: 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) - Condemnation Authorization We have been negotiating with M.A. Segale and Vince Coluccio on two separate parcels adjacent to the 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) and have been unsuccessful in these negotiations. At this time, we are seeking authorization to condemn however, we will continue to negotiate with these property owners throughout the condemnation process. ACTION: Recommend that Council authorize condemnation proceedings on the two properties in question adjacent to the 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) Additional items: Traffic Signal�Pioneer &Central Connie O'Keefe,Admin. Assistant at Kent Jr. High submitted letters to the Committee specifying the school's request for a pedestrian signal at the crosswalk of Central Ave & Pioneer St. Tyler Hill, a student at Kent Jr. High also submitted a letter of request for a traffic light at Central &Pioneer. By Committee motion the referenced letters were then made a part of the public record. Ed White stated that the City is presently in the design phase to install a signal at the crosswalk of Central &Pioneer. Ed gave an estimated time of early July when the signal would be installed and fully operational. Because we do have ISTEA funds as part of this project, there is also a brief review process required by the State in terms of reviewing the plans and specifications. Ed noted that this will be a pedestrian activated signal. .Wickstrom noted that we started out with a flasher signal for this crossing with a project cost of$27,000. We have now upgraded the project to a full signal. Our local match was still there for a flasher signal however, now we would like to transfer $23,000 from our 104th &256th Street Improvement project that was completed; we have extra money left from that project and would like transfer funds into the signal project which is now estimated to be $50,000. Committee unanimously concurred with the transfer of $23,000 from the 104th & 256th Street Improvement project into the Central Ave &Pioneer Signal project. 196th Street Corridor (West Leg) - Condemnation Tom Brubaker explained that this involves a request from Committee to approve the process to begin condemnation eminent domain authority over certain properties on the proposed S. 196th Street Corridor. The section of road involved is lying west of the Green River between Orillia Rd and the Green River. The memo to the Committee indicated two property owners however there are three property owners. Negotiations have been unsuccessful with these property owners and we hope to reach a settlement long before litigation commences. Tom noted that because of the time frame on the project, we need the authority now to commence litigation under eminent domain to condemn strips of property so that we may complete this road project. Committee unanimously recommended condemnation proceedings on the three properties in question adjacent to the S. 196th Street Corridor (West Leg). 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BOXMAKER - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the bill of sale for Boxmaker, Inc. , submitted by TBI Building, L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 375 feet of watermain, 60 feet of sanitary sewers, 790 feet of storm sewers and 485 feet of street improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at S. 190th St. and 62nd Ave. South. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (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. 3F i iSIS T ST - S T S 182NO Cry - @lr t OR hcc m PROJECT LOCATION Q/1/ 9 1ISM !} l reov ry S 18STH ST V �j fj1th 19L GLACIER ST ki ; S 190TH ST t 1 1 4 —--- ------ c , �1 3 ac j S 194 TH ST (� S 196TH ST j ! / 17RIY1 ; a�~r Qp S 196TH ST 1 �/ A 1p , y SI S 200TH ST \\ I CREEK= 5 202ND n si �oNNgQN l i// ^�' •� Cc ! / �T Pa. S 204TH ST t � r Ft I 1 V21 206` Terry ST Il W; \\ t S 1 S 209TH 1l 151 N.T.S. I Itcc W II cc ti t I /� BOXMAKER �frl Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 . 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: FOX RIDGE (AKA LUKES RUN) - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the bill of sale for Fox Ridge (aka) Lukes Run submitted by Lakeridge Development, Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of 788 feet of watermain, 11326 feet of sanitary sewers, 1, 454 feet of storm sewers, and 1, 132 feet of street improvements and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at 118th Ave. S.E. and S.E. 268th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (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. 3G d �IW � � P � v6E m SE 251 s2 PA:v. o - � SE 252 PL 5E e d SE 252 'TRRK ~ >', Cr sE 253 w SE 253 St SE 253 PL ¢ W w w ST co m Lo. u7 SE 254 =NCH X.C. POOL 5T �' �� =Lf ¢ ¢ ¢ iE 254 Pl sT , .RID,RN ¢ y y 554 � �• SGRDOL m �' ^�' SE 265 N �n SE 256 ST _ — PL �ffm rn SE 256 PL a!s t W i �l PFRX 6 RIDE � S€ 258 ST cl- Is, i h n S% m S o 258 \, r \ ¢� Q ^ SE 260 ST \SE 259 v $1 3 w \ PL 5 2;un � SE 60 PL sfYEN SE 261 �\ cl PRRX C_ P H I V. o 2 L W 1 m 5 262 PL 5% 262 cn \ 1 (1 L � � 12�•ys� m 26g ST Pl �« PROJECT LOCATION 4> oT S � k SE o N r' SE i 264 `; ¢ SE 26Y\ ANT SE 26L a x w SE 264 ST W 65 ,� 5E 265 L > c „� v SE 2 \ g 65 cT ` �D rL � w SE 2 6 ST 26 SE 2 6 7 S TQ ruoDR 4&.gRE P 5E 267 ju 2 i 07 co PL sE 2�\ s�e SE 268 ST - 268 ST ¢ i _ N O SE 269 STJ d a> PONOS p O .-• N SE 9 W o \� ~ sF 270 sT ''; — ¢ ° SE 270 ST W ST C SE 269 ST sF 5E 270 ^ W w j PRIV. S� 271 ST _ ^` vw '\s/5 O _ ri ti Z C s > SE 2 2 ST \` o nNE > �r SE= 272 ST ¢ 1 i O cr s SE 272 PL w w w "' N W U1 Ln ¢ ¢ ¢ J# U' > SE 27Y ST ^ SE v N 5 6E 74 _. 6T ¢ ¢co m 5 ?5 ST. SE 274 ST N z44 h a N 9` SE 276 ST sE z75 �m N PL l \( SE 276 -" S PlNf THEE ¢ '¢'�" W >' £LERENrRRr ✓�+ h N m Ln NERDDN > RIDGE cd SE 277 PL AWN �6< ar d SE sE 2 N y ¢ ELfnfvrRRr \�277 Pc 277 PL i'- SE 279 ST j P/Nf TREE m m PRIV.— W `7 CITT LIMITS PRRX SE 280 ST W 280 m — -- ------------------I sr Wr SE PRIV ST SE 282 ST cT� v NOR r > tL > ¢ SE 282 t SE 28 :R!" RIVER ¢ w > s ST '1R cr RA i o f N (( of �> o SE 283 ST 7 t1 cr,- � PRI4. sE 284 ST FOX RIDGE (a.k.a.) LUKES RUN 266 ST t-\` r Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 , 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: LEEP GRANT - ACCEPTANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As requested by the Police Department, authorization to accept the additional funding allocated from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (LEEP Grant) . An additional $8 , 038 has been allocated from the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (LEEP Grant) for Youth Conference follow-up staffing and/or goods and services. This is in additional to the original amount of $21, 317 for FY 96/997 (July-June) granted and approved by Council last fall. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee 1/21/97 (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3H Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 1997 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Perry Woodford to serve as a member of the Kent City Transit Advisory Board. Mr. Woodford is a Kent resident and has lived on Kent's West Hill since 1990. He was employed at the Boeing Company Development Center before transferring to the Kent Space Center. Mr. Woodford has had a long time interest in mass transit and will be valuable to the Transit board. Mr. Woodford will fill the position formerly held by Claudia Otey and his appointment will continue to 4/30/98 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor White 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (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. 3I MEMORANDUM TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENTT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR DATE: JANUARY 31, 1997 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT TRANSIT ADVISORY BOARD I have appointed Perry Woodford to serve as a member of the Kent City Transit Advisory Board. Mr. Woodford is a Kent resident and has lived on Kent's West Hill since 1990. He was employed at the Boeing Company Development Center before transferring to his present position at the Boeing Space Center. In his free time Mr. Woodford enjoys coaching a boys soccer team in Federal Way. He has had a long time interest in mass transit and will be a valuable addition to the Transit Board. Mr. Woodford will fill the position formerly held by Claudia Otey and his appointment will continue until 4/30/98. I submit this for your confirmation. JW.jb Pr Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 . 1997 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: DEL MAR ANNEXATION - AN-97-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to meet with the initiators of the Del Mar Annexation, an area of approximately 578 acres which lies generally between South 252nd Street and South 272nd Street and between Military Road and Pacific Highway South. Staff recommends that the Council accept the 10% notice to annex and authorize circulation of the 60% petition subject to the City's existing indebtedness and subject to the zoning requirements for newly annexed areas established in the City code. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, vicinity maps, and Notice of Intention to Commence 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 1-'i. 0 seconds • to accept the 10% notice of intent to annex the Del Mar area; • to establish the boundaries for the proposed Del Mar annexa- tion as presented by staff; • to authorize the circulation of the 60% petition for annexa- tion pursuant to RCW 35A. 14 . 120; • to require that the area, upon annexation, be subject to its proportionate share of the existing indebtedness of the City of Kent; an- • to require that the annexation area be subject to the zoning requirements for newly annexed areas established in the Kent City Code, DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4A TV7i4 BIT CITY OF �U-17 Jim White, Mayor PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS From: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR Date: January 29, 1997 Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH ANNEXATION PETITIONERS OF 10 PERCENT OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION IN THE PROPOSED DEL MAR ANNEXATION - AN-97-1 Meeting Date: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1997, AT 7:PM IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS WEST AT KENT CITY HALL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the 10% annexation petition for the Del Mar Annexation and recommends that the Council authorize circulation of the 60% petition subject to the City's existing indebtedness. I. Names of Applicants Fred Meyer 25250 Pacific Highway South Kent, WA 98032 II. Location The proposed annexation boundary is generally lies between South 252nd Street and South 272nd Street and between Military Road and Pacific Highway South. South of South 268th Street at Military Road, the annexation follows the existing City boundary easterly along South 268th to just west of 37th Avenue S. and then south to South 270th Street and easterly along South 270th Street to 42nd Avenue S. and then southerly along 42nd Avenue S. to South 272nd Street. `0 J(h AVE.SO.. /KENT,W ASHINGTON 990;2-iS95 1 TF.L EPHONE f1_06)859-1300/FAX a 850.1714 Del Mar Annexation Memo January 29, 1997 Page 2 III. Size of the Proposed Annexation The proposed annexation contains approximately 578 acres. IV. Background Information The proposed annexation lies in the West Hill area of the City with primarily single family residential uses located easterly of Military Road and in the Del Mar subdivision which lies southerly of South 252nd Street between Pacific Highway South and the I-5 Freeway. Commercial uses lie adjacent to Pacific Highway South between South 252nd Street and South 272nd Street. A number of apartment complexes lie south of South 260th Street and easterly of the commercial uses. There are approximately 423 single family residential dwellings in the proposed annexation and approximately 1,500 multifamily dwelling units. The poulation is approximately 4,000 persons. V. Cou= Comprehensive Plan and Zoning King County's Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed Del Mar annexation area as follows: Area adjacent to Pacific Highway South Community Business Center. Area east of commercial and adjacent to I-5 Urban Residential 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. Area east of I-5 Urban Residential 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre except at the northwest corner of South 272nd Street an Military Road which is Neighborhood Business Center. The County's zoning for this area is: Area adjacent to Pacific Highway South Community Business except for an area of R-12, 12 dwelling units per acre approximately across from South 262nd Street. 2 Del Mar Annexation Memo January 29, 1997 Page 3 Area east of commercial and adjacent to I-5 The Del Mar subdivision is zoned R-6, six dwelling units per acre, while the apartments are zoned high density multifamily. Most of the area south of South 260th Street is zoned R-4, four dwelling units per acre. Area east of I-5 R-4, four dwelling units per acre south of South 259th Street except for the northwest corner of Military Road and South 272nd Street which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The area north of South 259th Street is zoned R-6, six dwelling units per acre. VI. Kent's Comnrehe . ive Plan and Zoning Kent's Growth Management Act Land Use Plan covers the proposed Del Mar annexation. The plan indicates commercial for the area along Pacific Highway South and Urban Residential 4 to 12 units per acre for the area between the commercial and I-5. The area east of I-5 is SF-8, eight dwelling units per acre. Since the area of the Del Mar annexation is in unincorporated King County, there are no City designated zoning districts. However, the State Growth Management Act mandates that when zoning is applied to any area within the City, including a newly annexed area, zoning designations must follow the underlying comprehensive plan land use designations. When the Del Mar annexation becomes part of the City, staff will analyze existing County Comprehensive Plan land use designations to determine their appropriateness for Kent and will, after meeting with citizens in the affected area, make recommendations for any changes deemed appropriate to the City's Land Use and Planning Board. The Board will ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council who will make the final decisions as to what Comprehensive Plan land use designation will be placed on land in the Del Mar annexation area what the implementing zoning will be. 3 Del Mar Annexation Memo January 29, 1997 Page 4 VII. Fiscal Imvact Analysis The assessed valuation of the Del Mar annexation area is $114,338,144. The total estimated revenue from the annexation area is approximately $1,241,711 and is shown in the attached chart, Anticipated expenditures in the Del Mar annexation area are currently being reviewed. It is anticipated that revenue will be sufficient to cover expenditures. VIII. C_ity's Annexation Policies In 1987 the City Council adopted policies that deal with annexations (Resolution 1150). A review of those policies indicates that the Del Mar annexation satisfies their intent. JPH/cw:A:\AN97.1 4 + S �,�5'h.��-�''b+ 'r` .n ��i` �"*a§`�i 'S L'4�iK W�Fr � S'`br '� y�• it�2� ! �c ,L..&;.y"�^y� � ia4'...�,."'�Ci'{H:x• ,. �,�tY,�� � 'h"'�i�� � ��n.es Y.' �?'� r r :.51�.y. � `mob � � �y'<'ci�t -�a'F.rr,�_. �'°'v'•'�.�yw•� < 1§l)- n'.r.• +. /f ci� yu�s` ��� kyL • s s • • • AJ'UI 1+lul'L�ll1lCxntl0❑ CITY OF RECEIVED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT / J,_ DATE— — 9 7 MAIL TO: City of Kent Property Management 220 41h Avenue South x+rrx.sxc. Kent,Wa. 98032 Attn: Gerald McCaughan NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE &D %@ m o D ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS J pFl 2 2 1� OF KEOT NAME OP PETITIONER: EEO JN c y&-;?� C1CI?'t CLERK TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned property owners, believe our property constitutes not less than 10% in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of property contiguous to the City of Kent,and do hereby notify you of our intention to commence annexation proceedings seeking the annexation of(lie following described property to the City of Kent,by circulating a petition therefore among the property owners of said areas. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and described as follows: Tff D SE z.z- z g _ 3 p j4' ,7�e ,�,� Tow,u Sr/iP z Z. NORTr Rnw G dr 4' E.A,101. rm kl,J G CO&,&rY (J4jHi.✓s re Al L.YIA) G SoarN + qJO 4) asr OF sf�—,✓r cirY ci...,r•S EAST 0,- THE r✓e'.rr jW pr41e(flit of 60 AW O N0�2ry p F Tk� SDltTrf R��✓ .�yG/.� o,� sOuTy z7zN-� sr ABOVE OR ATTACHED DESCRIPTION NOT TO BE USED FOR LEGAL OR ORDINANCF PURPOSES WHEREFORE, these initiating parties respectfully request the Honorable Council to set a date for a meeting with these initiating parties within 60 days from the dale of filing this notice to determine whether the City of Kent will accept the proposed annexation. �Ifw Kent City Council Meeting Date February 4 , 1997 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: GUIBERSON RESERVOIR JOINT SEALING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this project was held on January 29th with seven bids received. The low bid was sub- mitted by Diamaco, Inc. , in the amount of $31, 648.50. The Engineer' s estimate was $63,297 . The project consists of sealing joints and cracks and installing crack monitoring gauges in the Guiberson Water Reservoir. It is the recommenda- tion of the Public Works Director that the Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing contract be awarded to Diamaco, Inc. for the bid amount of $31, 648. 50. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $31, 648 . 50 SOURCE OF FUNDS: #W21 Guiberson Street Reservoir Restoration Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember . Al. moves, Councilmember seconds that the Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing contract be awarded to Diamaco, Inc. for the bid amount of $31, 648 . 50. DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 4, 1996 TO: Mayor &-City CoZ FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing Bid opening for this project was held on January 29th with 7 bids received. The low bid was submitted by Diamaco Inc. of Kirkland, Wa. in the amount of $31,648.50. The Engineer's estimate is $63,297.00. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Guiberson Reservoir Joint Sealing contract be awarded to Diamaco Inc. for the bid amount of $31,648.50. Bid Summary Diamaco, Inc. 31,648.50 R.D.S. Construction, Inc. 37,475.07 Liberty Homes, Inc. 38,340.67 Hamann Enterprises 43,553.21 RJC, Inc. 44,970.63 Long Painting Co. 51,973.87 Salinas Sawing &- Sealing 72,575.15 Engineer's Estimate 63,297.00 MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Guiberson contract be awarded to Diamaco, Inc. for the bid amount of $31,648.50. J N ' . i VICINITY MAP N.T.S. t I 7 . Q p �• t t > 1 a . N AM s sr Te 2 • 24 >9 ❑Q � o❑ TEMPERANCE r a MiTN ST a SAIITN ST ❑❑ ` v a - ; I NARRIRT Q A MEKE ❑ :� '`� -- wGOW ST o❑OOF ziO O ,� TITUS = 1T ❑ = a©a�oa❑❑ KEN ❑ AMA--rll ram\ CITY w AA ST N ❑❑ ��❑I - \ HALL ❑O a❑ 1 auleERsoN ST ❑❑❑❑❑ nD�� �❑ EIEATTIE ST r CROW ST E CIIICAGO Sr 1 ❑❑ CE AURE S I� 1 Ffl .> E wEMCOCK ST Ip 1 1 t E /ILIERT S f N PROJECT SITE W ���. T > 1 ❑C= II 2A_L9 a � 25 ]0 � � / _tll W W 9 > N ` g u ST W J GUIBERSON RESERVOIR CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REGIONAL GOVERNANCE & FINANCE PROPOSAL TABLE OF CONTENTS PAST AND CURRENT EFFORTS DRAFT REPORT 'Regional Governance & Finance ProYosal" PRESENTATION (recommended as handout at briefing) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT REGIONAL GOVERNANCE & FINANCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - CHRISTOFFERSON REPORT PRESS RELEASE Regional Governance and Finance City Manager's Briefing Packet Past and Current Effort History: Since 1984 at least 8 study groups have produced reports on regional governance and finance. Each of these projects has ended without solving long term regional governance and finance questions. The reasons for failure may have included the inability to reach consensus on legislative intent for sales tax revenue streams, no real crisis to require change, incomplete or incomparable information, or failure to include all the necessary participants. In March of 1995 county, city, and special district leadership from throughout King County met to discuss how they would address decisions about regional governance and finance. This meeting was a response to SSB 5038 which directed urban counties to review governance and finance issues and gave power to redirect revenue streams under a radification formula similar to the GMPC radification process. The environment is different today than when previous studies were done. The region is now facing a limit of resources for government services which requires all governments to avoid duplication and to look for more efficient and effective ways to meet service needs. If new solutions are not found a financial crisis will develop for the county. Annexation and incorporations since 1989 have changed the county's role in local service delivery and the merge with Metro in 1994 has increased the regional service role of county government. If this region does not address our problems the state may intervene. The most acceptable solutions will no doubt come from within our local leadership. Current Regional Effort: As a result of the March 1995 meeting the GMPC was identified as the appropriate regional forum. Local leaders did not want yet another committee and the GMPC has a record of successes in dealing with difficult issues. A reconfigured steering committee, including special districts, was appointed to oversee this project. There is also a staff leadership group; Suburban Cities representative is Rob Odle from Bellevue. SCA Efforts: In early 1996 the SCA Board asked the City Mangers and some other staff with regional growth management and finance experience to develop a proactive approach to the regional governance and finance issues. At the suggestion of this work group the Board authorized the use of some of SCA's State Growth Management funds to develop two studies: the first looked for models of regional government which were working elsewhere and the second is a financial analysis of regional revenue streams and expenditures. The work group was also asked to develop a strategy for working with the City of Seattle and the county. This briefing packet represents the work of our manager's group. This is a working document which staff are offering as a framework for polity discussion. The SCA Board reviewed and revised this work on January 22, 1997. An elected official and staff team has been appointed to assist City Managers in a presentation to city councils which we hope will occur during January and February of 1997. It is hoped that cities will offer additional suggestions for the final discussion. The SCA will hold a special membership meeting February 26, 1997, at the Bellevue City Hall to discuss the proposal and with a vote of approval by the membership the SCA Caucus to the GMPC will offer our proposal to the Regional GMPC during the spring of 1997. breif.lre ojyrJA .� SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCIATION REGIONAL GOVERNANCE & FINANCE PROPOSAL: TOWARDS A FUTURE OF QUALITY GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES AND REGIONAL FINANCE EQUITY January, 1997 Executive Summary: The Suburban Cities Association (SCA)' presents this Regional Governance and Finance Plan to suggest a framework for improving the local government system in King County. The SCA is committed to the concept that major improvements in regional governance and finance can and should be made in King County. We believe that with a common vision for improvement, we can reach agreement in 1997 with Seattle, special purpose districts and King County to accomplish fundamental changes in governance and finance county-wide. The potential benefits to both citizens and individual jurisdictions are great; the time to act is now. Our report consists of three parts, as follows: Part I: Introduction: What Needs to Be Addressed? This portion of the report includes a brief statement recognizing the importance of other regional efforts which have carried forward the discussion of regional governance and finance until now, as well as a summary of the major problems which we believe need to be resolved as we proceed. Also included is a summary of the significant findings of work commissioned by the SCA in 1996 regarding regional governance and finance. Our key concern is the presence of a sizable "urban subsidy"—the expenditure by King County of city generated revenues to fund unincorporated local services. Part II: Vision Statement, Principles and Directions for Change This portion of the report includes a statement of our vision for a better governance structure in King County, and principles that we think must be adhered to as we develop specific solutions. It is not acceptable to suburban cities to bear ever increasing contract charges from the County and decreasing regional service levels, while city-generated tax base is being used to fund unincorporated area local services. This section of the report describes how the principles we promote will translate into changes in the Urban Incorporated, Urban Unincorporated, Rural and Regional Service areas. 'The Suburban Cities Association is a nonprofit organization representing all the cities in King.County-, excluding Seattle. The 34 member cities had a 1996 combined population of approximately 661,000. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 2 Part III: Achieving the Transition: Strategic Approach This section of the report includes a proposal for achieving the vision presented. To move forward, there.must be agreement on principles. Within the context of an overall "regional master plan," proposals for restructuring should be packaged around complementing sets of services and revenues. An initial set of service changes and action items is proposed. A service transition plan, including comprehensive fiscal analysis, would be drafted for each local or regional service for which significant change in delivery will be made. An outline of a transition plan, the use of which we strongly support, is described. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 3 PART I: INTRODUCTION: WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? By some accounts, the local governments of King County have been struggling with the issue of how to redefine governance and finance responsibilities for nearly three decades. We cannot successfully move ahead without being mindful of the efforts—successful and otherwise—that have gone before us. The suburban cities recognize the important contribution of these other study efforts on regional governance and finance that have been accomplished or are under way. The progress of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) under the Growth Management Act, the development of new comprehensive plans by all local governments, the works of King County's Select Committee on Regional Finance and Services (the "Ford Commission', the regional meeting sponsored by King County pursuant to ESSB 5038 (laws of 1995) and agreements resulting from that meeting, the FCS & Jim McIntyre reports on regional finance and governance provided to GMPC Oversight Committee in 1996, and the reports of the Consolidation Advisory Committee (formed to provide guidance in the merger of Metro and King County) all led to this report. Our report also incorporates the work of two studies commissioned by the Suburban Cities Association (SCA): Bob and Gayle Christofferson's Optimizing Service to the Public in King County, August 1996, and Mark Gardiner and Peter Moy's work, Urban Subsidy Report, January, 1997. That so many efforts over the years have acknowledged the need to address fundamental restructuring of finance and governance responsibilities sends two important messages: (1) progress will not be easy; and (2) the problem will not go away unless and until it is addressed. While some might say that there needs to be a "crisis" to move forward; we submit that the County's financial crisis is in fact upon us. Regardless, it is important to try to resolve these issues now, before the County and some local governments face even more difficult financial and services challenges than exist today. The suburban cities recognize that all stakeholders must be involved if this regional effort is to be successful. And, our member cities further recognize that each of us will be impacted differently by changes proposed. Success in this effort cannot be measured by an accounting exercise showing that no jurisdiction is required to pay more than they do currently. Rather, success will be measured by progress towards a common vision, consistent with agreed upon principles for change. The ultimate goal is more efficient, effective, and accountable local government—including the County, cities and special districts—and better citizen understanding of, and satisfaction with, our delivery of services. What Problems Need to be Addressed? The County faces a fiscal crisis. The County's revenue sources do not appear able to support both acceptable levels of regional services and provision-of local services at current urban service levels in the unincorporated areas of the County. Cities are dependent on the County SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 4 for quality regional services.' Voters are generally unwilling to add new tax revenues to fund traditional County programs. There is concern that the County has a fundamental cost control problem exhibited by higher overhead and higher unit costs than what should occur if economies of scale were delivering expected efficiencies. Recent studies indicate that there is a sizeable transfer of tax revenues collected by the County within city boundaries to fund local services the County provides in unincorporated areas. Depending on assumptions about how the County's share of sales tax collected in cities is allocated, this "urban subsidy" ranges from $10 million a year to over $31 million a year.' The "urban subsidy" facilitates the County's provision of local services at urban service levels, and diminishes its ability to adequately fund regional services. Increasing annexation and incorporation will only increase the size of the urban subsidy unless agreements are reached as to finance and governance responsibilities. Cities are charged by King County for many services, even while the County is applying regionally generated revenues to fund the unincorporated portion of such services. The result is that city citizens pay twice for County contract services---once through application of the taxes they pay to their city, and once through application of taxes they pay to the County. There is a fundamental equity-concern with this situation that must be addressed. Beyond equity, the rapid rise in some County contract costs charged to cities is beginning to threaten the fiscal health of some cities. 2The use of the terms "regional" and "local," whether applied to services or revenues are perennial subjects for debate. We do not presume by use of these terms to imply a particular set of services/revenues. Rather, we look to the upcoming regional discussions to specifically resolve these definitional issues. We here propose principles and strategies for approaching that discussion, and for moving from agreement on lists of services to transition towards a different service and finance configuration. 'The $10 million figure results if one assumes all the .15% sales tax collected by the County from within Cities should be allocated to fund local services in the unincorporated area. The $30 million figure results if one assumes that this revenue should be allocated 80% to fund regional services county-wide, and 20% to fund local services in unincorporated areas (this 80/20 split is based on the ratio of incorporated to unincorporated area residents, after backing out the .15% sales tax revenues generated by non-King County residents and businesses). °The term "urban subsidy" as used here is more accurately described as a "incorporated area subsidy of unincorporated areas," because the numbers reflect revenues being generated in cities and applied in unincorporated areas—urban and rural. This diversion of regional revenues is generally being referred to as the "urban subsidy." Rather than create a new term, we continue to use the commonly used phrase. SCA Regional Governance& Finance Proposal Page 5 The County and cities typically have not effectively solved mutual problems. There is little trust between city and county officials, born out of partisan/nonpartisan elections, organization culture differences, and a long history of variant perceptions as to roles and obligations. The current system of County-city contracts for services and lack of effective intergovernmental forums for problem solving perpetuates this situation. There is a lack of coordination and role definition among the over 170 local governments within King County. Citizens expect and deserve clarity of mission so they can hold the appropriate governments accountable for service levels, responsiveness, and costs. Despite the daunting array of problems faced, the suburban cities are hopeful that the history of effective problem solving we have experienced through the Growth Management Planning Council in recent years will continue as we address regional governance and finance issues. PART II: VISION STATEMENT, PRINCIPLES AND DIRECTIONS FOR CHANGE Toward a Common Desired Future The suburban cities envision a future local government system in King County where citizens have confidence that all the cities, special purpose districts, and the County deliver efficient and effective services. There will be clear alignment of service provision responsibilities, agreement on which revenues are used for funding those services, and accountability for the delivery of regional services. Citizens will know who to go to for services, and citizens will know how their taxes are applied to provide those services. In the cities' vision, those regional government services provided in King County will be of high quality, and funded using taxes and fees collected county-wide. In developing and improving the delivery of regional services, County government will seek policy direction from regional committees composed of city, County and (where appropriate) special district representatives, where the cities and districts are equal partners. The cities will provide high quality local services; the level of which will vary from city to city depending on each city council's determination of citizen priorities and budgetary constraints. Where appropriate, special districts or subregionai entities may continue to provide services, or be newly created to provide services. Cities will provide planning and permitting services within pre-annexation areas in anticipation of annexation. The County will contain its local service expenditures within a prescribed set of revenues, in order to assure sufficient funding for regional services and to encourage annexation/incorporation. . Once annexations and incorporations are complete within the urban area, the County will provide local services only to rural residents. Any future additions to the urban area will only be made when annexation/incorporation of such area is simultaneously provided for, so that the County does not have to again provide urban local services. SCA Regional Govemance & Finance Proposal Page 6 The definition of regional and local services will be based on consideration of economies and diseconomies of scale, service delivery efficiencies, citizen demands for flexibility and responsiveness, and local governance needs. Accurate and meaningful performance measures —detailing the effectiveness and efficiency of service operations—will be developed to dispel myths, facilitate operating improvements, and generate public confidence. Local governments will freely share financial and budget information and seek to make information comparable and easily understood. The jurisdictions will share a common vision for regional needs. This will result in collaborative governance and implementation strategies to including a regional capital improvements program and periodic benchmarks reviews. The jurisdictions will develop a track record of successful decisions regarding service delivery, -governance and finance that will enhance trust and collaboration between elected officials and staffs. A partnership will develop among the governments that will support and respect the legitimate roles of city, County, and special district governments. Principles for effective Regional Governance in King Countv Our vision can be translated into the following Principles for Effective Regional Governance in.King County: 1. Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, primary local service responsibility should reside with cities and primary regional service responsibility should reside with the County. 2. Classification of services as "regional' or "local," and allocation of service provision responsibility should be based on consideration of which governments)—be it a city, the County, special purpose district, or new sub-regional entity—is/are best suited to efficiently perform the function, considering: - economies and diseconomies of scale and other efficiencies; - unique attributes of the function; - equitable level of service across the region; - local control; - flexibility; - responsiveness; and - accountability. I The County, cities, and special districts must reach agreement on which county-wide revenues will be dedicated to provide county-wide regional services and hold these revenues harmless from decisions regarding County local service provision. The "urban subsidy" must be-eliminated: if there is agreement to support a particular subsidy from cities to unincorporated areas, this-should be based on consensus that the subsidized service or-program is indeed "regional,-" and therefore should be funded regionally. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 7 4. Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the entire urban area should be incorporated. Proposals for change should be judged in part on whether they promote annexation and incorporation or discourage it. Annexation to existing cities is preferred over formation of additional cities, but it is acknowledged that in certain cases new incorporations may better serve citizens of a local area, adjacent cities, and the region. This transition to incorporated status should occur as rapidly as practicable. 5. Revenues should fully fund basic services. Service responsibility must be tied to specific revenue sources to provide an acceptable service level; services provided must be paid by those specific available revenues. 6. The entity providing the service should have clear responsibility and authority, and be held accountable. The taxpayer should know who is the service provider, and the service provider should be directly accountable to the taxpayer for the service provided.. 7. Additional taxing authority should be sought only as a last resort, and only if consistent with an overall regional financial plan. 8. Cities, the County, and special purpose districts should continue to contract with each other to provide services when it is mutually advantageous and consistent with the principles set forth here. 9. Local governments must cooperatively strive to demonstrate to the public the value of the governance and finance changes proposed and implemented. 10. Long term financial and structural solutions should create economic, financial, and political value for all affected governments. We submit that the first step towards achieving the vision of a better governance and finance future is for all the local governments in King County to adopt these principles, and perhaps others. The sooner we reach agreement on a common set of foundation principles from which to work, the sooner we can make progress towards a successful transition in regional governance and finance. Directions of Chanze Proposals for changing the governance and finance structures in King County should be assessed for their consistency with the principles noted above. Among the key questions to be answered affirmatively are: • Does the proposal encourage the elimination of urban subsidy, and preserve regional revenues for regional services? • Does the proposal place responsibility with a service provider that has the ability to provide and finance the-service? SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 8 • Does the proposal include a mechanism for citizen involvement? • Does the proposal encourage annexation and/or incorporation of the urban area? Consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, the cities seek a regional finance and governance arrangement that places primary local service responsibility with cities and primary regional service responsibility with County. All unincorporated areas inside the urban growth boundary should become incorporated as soon as reasonably practicable. Revenues must match responsibilities. The "urban subsidy" of unincorporated areas should be minimized to facilitate a higher level of regional service provision. What is critical is that regional services and regional revenues are matched up in any transition plan. There will be financial winners and losers. The key mechanism needed is an agreement or agreements regarding which revenues are dedicated to regional services and which revenues dedicated to local services. The alternative to a revenue-specific agreement is to mandate service level cuts in urban unincorporated areas. While elimination of the urban subsidy will almost certainly require a reduction in some urban unincorporated local service levels, the cities would defer to the County in determining how to allocate its "local' revenues to fund local services. However, it is not acceptable to cities to bear ever-increasing contract charges from the County and decreasing regional service levels, while city-generated tax base is being used to fund unincorporated area local services. If we follow these principles, the directions for change that will result can be anticipated as follows: Regional Services and Capital Investment The County must provide high quality, high value regional services. The cities believe that the County should reallocate funds currently being used to fund local services in unincorporated areas to regional services and apply those funds to enhance regional service levels. This will also decrease the pressure on city contract charges paid to the County. There should be a clear definition of the county-wide service level for each regional service. If localities want to exceed that common standard, then local resources should be used to fund those service enhancements. An effort must be made to reach agreement on regional capital funding priorities. Urban Incorporated Areas Both the County and cities will work to facilitate the annexation or incorporation of urban unincorporated areas. Once annexed or incorporated, the cities (or if appropriate, special purpose districts) will assume responsibility for all local services previously provided by the SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 9 County. Future changes in the urban growth line must not result in the County again being required to provide urban local services. Intergovernmental contracts for local service provision must include mechanisms to maintain desired efficiencies and service levels, avoid any regional subsidy, and make the service provider accountable to the service recipient: both contracting parties must have a stake in ensuring cost-effective service delivery. Cities accept the County's role as a regional services provider but must assure good service. It is critical for efficiency and effectiveness that some regional services be coordinated with local services (e.g. courts/police). Cities expect the opportunity to work closely with the County to optimize services and lower costs. The County will be clearly and directly accountable to the public for regional services, as will the cities for local services. Urban Unincorporated Areas The goal is to accelerate the transition of all urban unincorporated areas to incorporated status, in order that the County may focus its revenues and energies on the provision of regional services. To provide incentives for all urban areas to annex or incorporate, and to provide an enhanced ability for the County to focus on regional services, Potential Annexation Area (PAA) agreements must be completed. Another critical step that will both diminish the County's service obligations and enhance city control over PAAs is the transition of planning, permitting and inspection responsibilities in the PAAs from the County to the cities. Proposals which create enhanced incentives for annexation or incorporation of the urban area must be aggressively pursued. Incentives for the County, cities, and citizens must all be considered. Part III of this report outlines four specific proposals to accomplish this transition in the urban area. Rural Areas The County and special purpose districts will continue to provide quality local services in the rural area either directly or by contract. Rural service levels should be consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. It is recognized that some revenues from the urban areas may need to be applied in the rural areas, in recognition of the inherent and appropriate low revenue generation ability of the rural areas. However, this support should not be a drain on the County's ability to provide high quality, high value regional services. The level of any such support needs to be understood and agreed upon between the cities and the County. Any changes to the urban growth boundary should only occur if any newly "urban" areas are immediately annexed to the adjacent city, or, if not contiguous, if there is a signed annexation agreement between the property owners in the newly "urban" area and city whose Potential Annexation Area is adjacent. Changes in the urban growth line should only be approved in a. manner consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 10 PART III: ACHIEVING THE TRANSITION: STRATEGIC APPROACH Step 1• Master Plan for Transition Part II of this report identified principles and directions for change that will result in improved regional local service delivery, quality and accountability for King County residents. In 1996, the Growth Management Planning Council's Oversight Committee began an examination of the array of services currently being provided within King County. These services are being provided by 1) King County to unincorporated residents, to all county residents, or to city residents via contract; 2) Cities to their citizens, and to other city or county residents through contract; and 3) Special Taxing districts which provide a single or very limited array of services (i.e. fire and water districts). The Oversight Committee has begun the process of identifying services that are potential candidates for transition either from local governance to regional, or from regional to local. This process should be expanded to develop a Master Plan for Transition. This plan should identify the ultimate "home" for services, consistent with the Desired Future, Principles for Effective Governance, and Directions for Change identified in Part II, and consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies. Transitioning urban unincorporated areas to incorporated status is critical to achieving the principles and goals outlined in this plan. To provide incentives for all urban areas to annex or incorporate, and to provide an enhanced ability for the County to focus on regional service provision, the urban subsidy-musf be eliminated. The following four proposals would accelerate the annexation or incorporation of the urban area, and are essential to the Master Plan for Transition: 1. The Cities and the County should accelerate efforts to complete Potential Annexation Area (PAA)_Agreements. These are the "roadmaps" to guide the transition from unincorporated to incorporated status within the urban area. The sooner these roadmaps are in place, the better our planning can be. These agreements should be completed by January 1, 1998 (recognizing that the actual transition to incorporated status may take longer). The key to an acceptable transition from unincorporated urban to incorporated is the quality of pre- annexation agreements. Each PAA Agreement must provide: - that the County adopt city development standards within the PAA; - that the County and city agree on land use plans within PAAs and planning authority is transferred to the city, and - upon execution of the PAA, cities will handle planning, permit administration and code enforcement within the PAA; - agreement about the terms and conditions under which the County will continue to make infrastructure investments in PAA; and. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page I I dispute resolution mechanisms. 2. The County should agree to limit its expenditures on local services in unincorporated areas to an agreed upon revenue stream effective January 1, 1999. To facilitate this, by January 1, 1998, the cties and the County should agree on a schedule that reduces the current urban subsidy to zero within a set period of time, and sets forth a clear allocation of regional revenues to provide for regional services. The County should determine how best to facilitate this budgetary change, either by reducing service levels, or seeking new local revenue sources to pay for unincorporated services which are generated solely from unincorporated area residents. 3. The County and the cities should work to implement financial incentives for cities to annex remaining urban unincorporated areas whose tax base is insufficient to pay for operational costs of urban services and deferred infrastructure needs. Many of the remaining unincorporated areas are not economically self-suicient. They cannot survive as a separate city, and annexation to an existing city may impose an unwanted tax burden on that city's residents. An "Annexation Fund" should be developed to deal with this issue. A portion of the existing urban subsidy could be set aside for the purpose of offsetting the costs to finance infrastructure/service issues. Other mechanisms should also be explored. Such incentives will be most effective if they are in place at the same time the County is committed to a specific revenue for local unincorporated service provision. 4. Upon completion of the PAA process, the Growth Management Planning Council should assume authority for the Boundary Review Board in King County. Step 2: AliLyning Revenues with Services Based on the analysis performed by Clancy, Gardiner & Pierce/Peter Mov & Associates for the Suburban Cities Association titled Urban Subsidy Report (January, 1997), several revenue and expenditure assumptions and allocations should be changed to more accurately and equitably reflect the relationship between revenues and service categories within the County. This realignment should be consistent with the principles outlined in Part II, in particular principles 3, 5 and 6. The Urban Subsidv Report recommends that the .15% sales tax revenue generated within cities and received by the County be allocated based on population, such that 20% is allocated to fund local services in unincorporated areas, and 80% is allocated to fund regional services. The current allocation of all property tax revenues received by the County for regional -services should continue. Other taxes and fees should be more directly connected to the applicable service category (i.e. license revenues, criminal justice fines, fees and forfeitures, permit fees, etc.) SCA Regional Governance& Finance Proposal Page 12 Step 3• Develop Transition Plans for Services To apply the foregoing principles and directions of change most successfully, transition plans should be developed around sets or packages of services. As stated in Part One, overall improvements to our current system of finance and governance will likely require some sacrifice from each government entity in the County. Services should be packaged with the intent to minimize or balance the responsibility and cost impacts. Service packages or sets should also be identified as those that should be addressed within the next two or three years (short term), and those that should be addressed within the next six years (long term). To aid in the analysis that must"occur to determine whether a service should be transitioned, and what the impacts of that transition will be, the following outline is presented as a guide for decision makers who are considering changing the delivery of specific services: 1. Service: Name the service and its major components that are being considered for change. 2. Interests: Identify and list the primary interests of the County, the cities, and special districts (if applicable) that must be addressed for the change to occur. 3. Rationale: State why this change is in the best interests of citizens and governments. 4. Customers: Who are the customers of the service? 5. Other Stakeholders: What other individuals and groups may have an interest.in the future delivery of this service? 6. Funding: (a) Describe the financial arrangement including taxes, other revenues, obligation to serve, and service levels. (b) To include new money or not.) (c) What happens to assets, debt, and bonding authority? 7. Personnel: What principles guide personnel decisions? (Continuation of employment, salary levels, hiring, other). 8. Governance/ Accountability: Describe the policy making and decision structure between the governments during the transition, and after the transition. SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 13 9. Transfer Mechanism: What agreement device should be used for the transfer? Describe legislation that may be required. 10. Evaluation of Results: What will be measured to evaluate performance and report results during the first three years of the transition? 11. Political Issues: List the primary political interests and issues among the parties regarding this service. 12. Communications: Describe a public involvement process for the decision and the transition. Model Service "Set" for Transition From the array of services currently provided in King County by local and County governments, and listed as an appendix to this report, presented below is a "set" of services to be considered for transition to illustrate how services could be packaged for analysis and consideration for transition. Note that a detailed fiscal analysis has not been completed on these services; however, as cities we believe they are representative of the types of services that should be examined, and the analysis required for their transition will help lay the foundation for resolving a number of issues and concerns laid out in this report. We look forward to pursuing a more detailed fiscal analysis with the other members of the GMPC Oversight Committee. 1. Planning, development standards and permit administration within pre-annexation areas. Cities become responsible for the long-term service needs of new developments and maintenance of public facilities within their PAA's. With comprehensive plans now in place under GMA, it is timely to increase city authority over planning, development standards and permit administration in potential annexation areas. 2. Pools and parks. The cities will assume responsibility for funding and managing local parks and pools within their boundaries. The County will assume responsibility for regional parks. I Police services in the unincoporated area. Routine law enforcement services_in unincorporated urban King County should not be funded from-regional revenues. Working with cities, the County should develop a transition plan describing how police services will be provided in the urban area as those areas transition to incorporated status. The County and the cities should plan for the County or subregional entities to provide highly specialized services (911, bomb, major SCA Regional Governance & Finance Proposal Page 14 accident reconstruction, helicopter, ....) county-wide, or subregion-wide. 4. Human services. Human services should be planned and delivered on a consistent regional basis. The County can more efficiently coordinate services and public/private funding, allocate funds to the highest needs, and develop a true "human service system" than 35 local governments working on their own. Following the precedence of pass-through programs and public health, the County should plan, fund, and deliver (direct or by contract) human services, county-wide. GMPC Oversight Committee Service Case Studies The following four services were designated by the GMPC Oversight Committee in December as services to be evaluated as transition case studies. These services should receive the same analysis as those identified above, using the principles and elements outlined in this report. The Oversight Committee has designated these studies to evaluate the feasibility of transition as well as to gain experience working cooperatively on service transition. 1. Planning, development standards and permit administration within pre-annexation areas. 2. Woodland Park Zoo. 3. Senior services. 4. Courts of limited jurisdiction (Municipal and District Courts). Recommendation to GMPC The Suburban Cities Association recommends that GMPC Oversight Committee consider and adopt the principles and strategic approach outlined in this report during the first quarter of 1997. Further, GMPC should select a city/County team to develop service transition plans to recommend a set of services from part two of this report to transition. This detailed planning should be accomplished during 1997. The GMPC Oversight Committee is currently developing a list of services that should be examined utilizing the principles in this paper. Transition of services will be more acceptable to all parties if they are based on an agreed upon set of principles. Conclusion King County continues to develop very rapidly. All local governments can be more effective in providing local and regional services to citizens through improved coordination and mutual support. The principles outlined in this draft plan constitute a helpful foundation for a new era of governmental cooperation. The plan has the potential to improve service, provide more certainty for the future, and enhance the citizens perception of the quality of local government in King County. PRESENTATION REGIONAL • GOVERNANCE tr • 1 FINANCE Regional Finance & Governance Purpose of this work effort luunill principles.sn-ate�ics and directions P[Csentation to fur chance that will result in improved SCA Board& rLgional artd local service delis er}.quality GMPC Caucus and accountability tin-King C'uunq r:�tii_icntz Y.\Imuw:hl•n.man:InL l.r.c 1 ti.11„nn.:h .n.mr:ILL 1:�.. 1n Ml Clements 'I-ask t�urce membership Christal'fcrson National Survey of Clh 1�lanngcrs/Administrators Governance K Finanm f;e� Ciu StatT Gardiner/�lo}' Urban Subsidy Report S(' � fi�ecuti�c Director Plan for Regional Governance LX Finance 1 Christofferson study Christofferson study (cont.) "What is in place today is not necessarily Solution Neill myuire eflbrt and sacrifice on what any reasonable person or group of the part o[all parties people would logically decide upon' [3ut it kill result in greater responsibilities 'Realignment of responsibilities will and resources for County&City reyuirc conscientious participation by aft governments[o lead their constituencies local govemments" into the 31st Century. Y'11r�R I�...w.�:f�L l.w: Iw'If Y\I.us:q �..mr ILL I.o. I.n•n W11% ,I)MIld Cities take a Christofferson study (cont.) posili�ln':' There must he equity in financing I problems will act norsc - ;rr-4�n3=,rr:�ce and reoenuc base strung police Icadct ship antl direction hxri 9nC rrcm tr.e County elected officials _,CO impact an cults Match service pro%ision ti ith occmment C_unty,;plight eHaCerbate5 sane cities fiscal best equipped to delis rr it rTI Ret!il ial finance & Governanec What GardincrlNioy study told us flan--Desired [ uturc Urban Subsidy' dispropurtiunofrc�critics ( Ie:r.di ronentofsoniics, Ic%cnucs, allocated to urban unincorporated areas 'Pnnsibility' Rcmilts in insaltieicnt rcxxlrccs for l rnmta provides high quality rctrional regional services \.r,iecs. paid with regional revenues i-egiaral committees provide policy direction Regional revenue surplus urban subsidy Regional suplus-w'han xthsidv: nrrr_ti_;I- t tnlnq provides rural son ices million �p.:cial Service Districts vNhere appropriate .C\lu,...,ntr..nwv.Irl Ly.• ini9, ip Regional Finance &Governance Plan—Desired Future Principles Cities provide high quality urban-level local I- service Responsibility Consistent with services - t'ountvwide Planning Policies County=Regional, Cities=Local Annexation or incorporation of urban arras �- Scrvicr Provider determined by Transition unincorporated areas wllh pre- -economies and diseconomies of scale and other annexation Interim service aerecnlents efficiencies Financial support for bringing sub-standard -unique attributes of the function areas to"city level -equitable level of service across region - vocal control,flexibility --responsiveness;accountability Principles (cont.) Principlei (cont.) ;-Align regional revenues with rc!,ional i,-Gi crnmenI providing service should have sen-ices-no urhmt suhsid� authoritc and he held I EntlrC urban area should he inoi poratcd e�uunu�hlc (annesation preferred) 7- Vcxx wS omm,! h legislation onlc as last -Revenues fulls fund hasic sen ices r nn taxpayer directly connected i%ilh service ft-iL 1,711ract i%hcn mutualh ad,,antaceuus provider 9- ;kmonstrate value of chann!es to puhlic Directions for Chanlse-Reoional Principles (cant.) Service & Capital Invesiment 10-Solutions should create economic, financial and political raluc for all aticcted kc.:Iluc,uc tunas tined from providing governments urhun scnrces to improve regional services c l,:;u definition of rational service levels laic.have option to exceed regional ,)Uld.ud with local resources Directions for Change- Urban Directions for Change- Incorporatled Urban Incorporated (cont.) Both Count and Cities work to annex or Sonic regional services incorporate unincorporated areas mint Mill he coordinated -Upon annexaticn/mcorporation,cities assume (c.e. courts/police) responsibility --Cities&County work closely to optimize service -Contracting with County in an option-with detailed and contain costs oversight County accountable for regional services. Pities for local/urban Directions tier Chan-,e_ Dlrcction,� tier Change- Urban Unincorporated Rural areas t.ucal services icstrictcd to dcsi hated t �,,-lilt -md,pccial purpose districts revenue stream pro.i.i.! rural,ux ices Areas,to he uansitioncd thrcutgEl pre- l:.h.li urn ice is not urban Ic;cI tu annexation agreements ;:tl crra s are calucd and some urban -Adopt City Development Standards -.ih,l,. rnac occur -Agreement on Land Use i h w l jrtmth Ituundarn must he preserved -Cities handle permdti I:e; rrscntitiun on regional issues um.n,cn,nrne loth rural proportion 1chiC. inr� the Transition nchicvino. the I'MI",itiun iZCrcnttcs vNith Services Develop %latter Pla❑ i , 1,1stciit with Principles —Use C%IPC Prccess )awl`. Propertv taxes = regional services - Identity Wirnate'hame-forterms-s ,runh Sales taxes - 20"o unincorporated: Complele PA:A , SI Icional -Adapt city devetcpment standards rc\cones connected u, related service -City has planning.perms roue ente[Cemen! authority -Infrastructure investment -Dispute resolution mcchamsms First Services for Transition Seri,ice Transition Guidelines Set !I From N stcr Ilan. pick services Ior Pianninl;. Development Standards K Permit transition ;drninitration in PAA's-From County to t Itirs Packages or ten ice 'sc[ti that minimiic Use GrAA process on Comp Plan&Zoning net impact Agreement an pipeline projects&funding Short term - next 3 scars. lone term n next 6 years Consider IZ element outline in developing transition plan Services Transition Sen:icy-, I rruisition Set r l (cunt.) `act 1 conL) Pools&Paiks Senices in Urban Areas —Cities assumes respcns biaty'dr Lc-al parks 3 1,cuLne 1_m enforcement m urb.]n areas funded pods Lom tho=.e•areas —County assumes respensibiidy for r,:anal parks IPrvelcp,.ernce can that anticoates and'acwtP s 'r ,,it Ira rccrporatlon i-:ccny a Si,b-ren,anal entitles provide r i._.;..trd ,ervlces(9i7,bomb squad,major . ..-!':r.,-..•;. helicapter etc) �l 11 n....A�...,m.n.,1a.4 I... )..v♦ • 4\In.i...�♦,..nnn;I...I• Iii'.tJ Services Transition GN111C Service Transition Set iT,l (colit.) C asc 'i I Iuman Services eou tit pxsidc 111annimv, development standards. permit —Planned,funded&delivered tdvecf or by contract) a_h° ui cic. on a consistent regional basis 1..Anillafld Park SOU —County best vehicle to cxrdmate 3 develop regional"human service`Vsl?!il SQ,:,or Services VA, ncipal & I)istrict Courts Recommendation to GNIPC Next Stcps Consider&adopt this plan during I st Rev icw with each city between now and quarter of 1997 Fchruan 11. 1997 Select city/county team to develop senice Gencrat membership review at SCA transition plans meeting of February 12. 1997 Recommend senice "sets'to transition Adapt draft(as amended) Present as SCA position at GNIPC 0i crsieht Committee Regional Governance & Finance Schedule GMPC/Oversight SCA Process I. December Services evaluated by criteria Getting Our Act Together of governance, finance, service Managers present initial delivery principles/strategy to SCA Board/GMPC Caucus II. January/February "Other Forums" report to Managers present final draft discuss if they are the SCA Board direction appropriate venue for plan development Plan reviewed by individual Councils Current expense budget analysis: Seattle, Bellevue and Membership Review/Principles one other city &-Strategy Endorsed III. January/March Case Study Development Planning, Zoning, Permitting Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Zoo Senior Services IV. Mid-February/ Oversight begins review of Caucus Use May governance/finance issues Principles presented at Oversight and form basis for Completion of draft regional desired outcomes governance and finance plan at Oversight V. June/August GMPC Review & Principles/strategy used in plan Recommendation review VI. Fall County Council Approval/ Citv Use City Ratification Final individual City review at ratification JAN-27-1997 10:31 HELLEUUE POLICY PLRNNIN6 226 637 7115 P.02 Questions and Answers about Regional Governance and Finance Suburban Cities AssociatforWanuary1997 1. Why are we doing this? • Money for governmental services is scarce, and new sources are unlikely to come along. We need to do a better job managing current resources we collectively have in the region — eliminating duplication, clarifying service level expectations and responsibilities. We also need to work together as a region to provide incentives for each of us to be more efficient. Analysis of the County budget indicates that there is approximately $31 million in tax revenue generated each year by King County taxpayers Irving in cities which is being applied by the County to fund services in unincorporated areas. This "urban subsidy" is money that could be used to improve the level of regional services, and to reduce the charges to cities for County contract services. • These discussions create an opportunity to refocus the County's activities on regional services, control the level of County expenditure on local services, and end the urban subsidy by cities to unincorporated areas. • The Countywide Planning Policies require that by July, 1997, the cities and the County develop a "regional finance plan" and a "regional governance plan" covering the full range of governmental services. • State legislation (SSS 5038) required cities, special districts and the County to sit down and talk about governance and finance issues by March, 1995, and to report back the legislature by January, 1997. If we do not convince the legislature that we are addressing these issues locally, the legislature may resolve them for us. 2. What services is the County required to provide under law? • records and elections • felony jail superior courts • youth detention and juvenile adjudication • felony prosecution property assessment • public health, mental health, alcohol rehab programs • licensing and regulatory services • medical examiner (coroner) • unincorporated area police services • regional growth management planning JAN-27-1997 10:31 BELLEUUE POLICY PLHNNirNG • 911 system hardware, centralized funding developmental disabilities programs EMS levy & allocation •. regional emergency management coordination unincorporated area planning and building regulation • unincorporated roads 3. What programs does the County provide, in addition to these mandates, that Cities generally do not provide and/or do not have on-staff expertise to provide? • sewage treatment • transit • jails AFIS (Automatic Fingerprint Identification System) • Animal Control 4. What happens if we do nothing? • Our contract costs with the County will continue to increase at rates well in excess of inflation. • Tax dollars generated in cities will continue to be transferred to fund unincorporated area services with a likely increase annually in the subsidy. • Citizens will not be well-served, and will continue to be confused about governmental responsibilities. • The County's budget situation and regional service levels will continue to deteriorate. 5. Is this going to cost my City money? Probably, depending on the size and land use mix of your Potential Annexation Area. However, the alternative — continuing confusion and duplication of governmental roles, and continuing urban subsidy — will, we would argue, cost you more over the long term. Said another way, a planned and orderly transition, begun now, will allow us to identify and capture efficiencies in service provision. The longer we wait the greater the cost may be. Also, as urban unincorporated areas annex then cities will collect local taxes from them. 6. How much will it cost my City? It depends on your situation. We have developed a template to help you analyze your situation, and have also hired a financial consultant to assist your staff in using JAN-27-1997 10:32 EELLEUUE POLICY PLRNNING 206 637 7115 P.04 that template. Each city needs to work with its staff to identify and quantify the impacts of the various service and finance transition scenarios. 7. What if my City doesn't want to annex it's entire Potential Annexation Area? Each city will be making its own agreement with King County, and under current laws, no city can be forced to assume a PAA greater than they will accept. However, the more urban unincorporated area remaining under the County's control, the more difficult it will be to eliminate the urban subsidy and re-focus the County on providing quality regional services. Currently, cities are subsidizing these unincorporated areas, so we have a collective incentive to see these areas transition to City control. The other alternative is to encourage the creation of new cities in these areas — but new cities are increasingly unlikely to be economically viable as separate jurisdictions and may reduce some revenues available to existing cities. 8. isn't the timeline proposed (PAAs completed by 111198) too ambitious? Not if the region's governments are truly committed to getting regional governance issues resolved. This is where you come in. Each city needs to be informed and strongly committed to making these changes. Lack of commitment can derail this effort. We can't afford business as usual —either as individual cities or as a region. Also, many jurisdictions have already begun work on your agreement and have defined their PAA boundaries. 9. Is the County motivated to change? Recent statements by both the County Executive and some County Councilmembers suggest the County is motivated to reduce or eliminate local urban services and re-focus their activities on regional services. Further, the County perceives that it faces a financial crisis, due to reduction of sales tax revenues (resulting from annexations and incorporations) and skyrocketing criminal justice, public health, and other costs. it expects to make significant budget cuts in all general fund programs over the next several years in order to maintain criminal justice functions at current service levels. It will depend in part upon whether the County Council perceives that cities are serious about annexing their Potential Annexation Areas, thus financially enabling the County to make significant program shifts_ 10. Will this stop the County from building new sports stadiums? Probably not. But we need to act now to preserve the revenues needed for regional services and hold those revenues harmless from such decisions. 11. What happens next? JRN-27-1997 10:32 BELLEVUE POLICY PLRNNINO 2Ue �` ` '""� We need to identify whether there is a suburban city consensus to support the principles and strategy in the City Manager's proposal. Each City Manager/Administrator is asked to present the proposal to your Council, and to undertake an assessment of the impact of the proposal to your City. We are asking for your responses back by mid-February at the latest In February, after a special membership meeting, the SCA Board will adopt a final proposal based on input from cities. The SCA Board will also identify a team of elected officials to work with the city manager group in promoting the proposal within the region. In late February, SCA will present its proposal to the County and Seattle at the Oversight Committee and subsequently to the Growth Management Planning Council through their representatives to these groups. Beginning in late spring, the GMPC will deliberate on the Oversight Committees recommendation for restructuring regional governance and finance and will report back to the region in midSummer,1997. Any major proposals adopted by GMPC would be adopted by the County and forwarded to cities for ratification. 12. Who do I call for more Information? You can call Jay Covington, Assistant to the Mayor in Renton, 235-2580, or Lynda Ring-Erickson, Executive Director of SCA, 236-7676. They can also direct you to other members of the SCA City Manager Team working on this project. Optimizing Service to the Public in King County Washington Robert A Christofferson September 1996 Executive Summary In the second quarter of 1996, the Suburban Cities Association authorized the Regional Finance and Governance Committee to commission a national search for models of effective city/county finance and governance relationships. The committee hired the firm of Robert M. Christofferson to conduct the search. The scope of the study was to examine other regions of the country to discover what works best, and what, if anything may be transferable to King County. The expectation was that such a study, combined with results of work already done in recent years and work currently in progress, might produce a practical, "real life" blueprint for change and adjustment in the King County region that would be beneficial to the public over the long term. The ten regions examined included Snohomish, Thurston and Clark Counties within Washington; Multnomah, Washington and Lane Counties in Oregon; the San Diego area;Minneapolis-St.Paul area; and the Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Guilford and New Hanover Counties in North Carolina. In addition, information was examined from Australia and New Zealand, where major regional governance restructuring is occurring. The search also referenced recent work completed by Neal Pierce and William Dodge, who have both conducted separate analyses of regional governance and finance models. The Christofferson effort yielded no "silver bullet" with respect to regional cooperation and effectiveness, but did yield a variety of ideas applicable to King County. Features characteristic of the most successful approaches in other regions are summarized below: 1. There is a foundation of good will, trust and intergovemmental cooperation among the individuals and agencies involved. 2. Often, things have to get worse before they get better; i.e. some type of crisis (often fiscal) creates a condition that leads to new approaches. 3. The public must be part of the solution; sound information must be developed and the public must be well informed and involved in the process. 4. The public must feel that its governmental agencies are doing the best they can with resources available; i.e. waste, duplication and overlap of services have been (or will be) replaced by cost-effective methods of delivering services. 5. There must be equity in the financing of programs. 6. There must be strong policy leadership and direction by elected officials, strong administrative leadership in the implementation and commitment to the vision on the part of all players. 7. Turf issues must be defeated. Although it may sound trite, agencies and officials must put the public interest first, as they are sworn to do. 8. The agency best equipped to provide the service should provide it, irrespective of historical patterns of organization, and the government charged with responsibilities must be adequately empowered to perform the duties assigned. 9. Whatever change is contemplated, there must be provision for an orderly transition. From their study of the regions, the Christofferson group recommends a task force (or designation of an existing group) with representatives of the government entities most directly effected be established. Essential to its success will be the nature of the leadership that is contributed by the governments involved, and their willingness to contribute work and to see the project through to completion. Based on successes from the studied regions, what is likely to emerge from this effort is: A reconstituted King County government that has broader regional powers to deal with regional issues; A new role for King County's cities to provide local services to their citizens and to citizens in the unincorporated area that constitutes the cities's future annexation areas (and possibly beyond), with appropriate fiscal arrangements to compensate for service costs; A rededication to the principle that no further urban development occurs outside of cities or their new service areas; A similar rededication to the preservation of open space in permanent preserves, so that sprawl and unplanned development does not ultimately consume that which gives King County and the Puget Sound region its character and livability; A realignment of financing mechanisms to provide funding for each level of government's service that is appropriate and preferably related (i.e. property taxes funding property-related services, etc.) Avoidance of the creation of a new level of government, which has occurred in other regions, probably to the detriment of long-term solutions; Careful examination of single- or special- purpose districts, on a case-by-case basis, to determine if merger, elimination, transfer of functions, or other changes may be justified. Review of whether some issues extending beyond King County's boundaries warrant improvements over our existing stricture to address them. The Christofferson group concludes that moving in the direction outlined above should lead to more cost-effective service delivery of public services and keep the region competitive economically, and maintain its qualities and character. burb an Cit s Suburban Cities Association of King County, Washington `4Ssociatioi' PRESS RELEASE Dr. Lynda Ring January 27, 1997 EYecutii,e Director Suburban Cities of King County Contact Person: Lynda Ring Erickson ALGONA 206-236-7676 AUBURN BEAUX ARTS Mercer Island—The elected officials of the 34 Suburban Cities in King BELLEVUE County have begun a month long process to review draft principles for how BLACK DIAMOND the cities and King County can work together to improve government service and efficiency. The final principles will be presented to the BOTHELL Oversight Committee of the Growth Management Planning Council as part BURIEN of its work to develop a plan for service which will be regional (provided by CARNATION County government) and services which will be local (provided by city CLYDE HILL government or county government in unincorporated areas). The DES MOINES principles will be used as a basis for discussion as part of the ongoing DUVALL regional governance and finance work of the Growth Management Planning Council. ENUMCLAW FEDERAL WAY HUNTS POINT Councilmember Bob Edwards of Renton and Mayor Rosemarie Ives of ISSAQUAH Redmond will present the suggestions on behalf of the cities. Mr. Edwards KENT commented, "Our members, Seattle and King County elected officials, and KIRKLAND special district commissioners are motivated to find the best solutions for LAKEFORESTPARK providing effective services and minimizing costs." M EDINA Recent annexations and incorporations have shifted the population and MERCER ISLAND revenue balance in King County from unincorporated areas to cities. While MILTON this creates a financial drain for the County it also offers an opportunity for NEWCASTLE elimination of government inefficiencies and duplications of service. NORMANDY PARK Representatives of the Suburban Cities have been looking for positive NORTH BEND solutions to meet the growing service needs of the region with current PACIFIC resources. REDMOND Each member city has been asked to discuss principles to improve RENTON governance and finance and to offer suggestions for presentation to the SEATAC Oversight Committee and subsequently to the Growth Management SHORELINE Planning Council on behalf of the suburbs. Final principles will be SKYKOMISH discussed in a special meeting of suburban elected officials to be held in late SNOQUALMIE February. The Growth Management Planning Council `s Oversight Committee will be working on governance and finance throughout the TUKWILA spring and summer months. WOODINVILLE YARROW POINT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1997 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Tim Clark for Jim Bennett, Connie Epperly for Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Tom Brubaker, Becky Fowler, Charlie Lindsey, Brent McFall, May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Sue Viseth MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: None. The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. by Chairperson Johnson. Jon Johnson introduced the acting committee members. Centennial Center Tenant Improvement Project Change Order Finance Director May Miller explained that the tenant improvement for Valley Cities at the Centennial Center required a change order due to permit requirements for a two hour fire wall which had not been in the original estimate. May distributed a handout detailing the change order of $14,604.04. She recommended that the Committee approve the change order and noted that there is a budget for $200,00 for tenant improvements so no budget change is necessary. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there was a motion. Acting Committeemember Clark moved to recommend acceptance of the change order for Centennial Center tenant improvements for Valley Cities. Acting Committeemember Epperly seconded the motion which carried with a vote of 3-0. Sick Leave Incentive Program Employee Service Director Sue Viseth stated that she would like to recommend a Sick Leave Incentive Program for the Non-Represented Employees. She noted that this is the identical program currently offered to AFSCME employees and the program that is under tentative agreement with the Teamsters. This program consists of an annual monetary incentive based on an employees ability to reach certain sick leave accruals and maintain those over the course of the year. In so doing, they would receive monetary benefit in January of the following year as is reflected in the attachment in the agenda. Viseth noted that the purpose of the program is to have employees look at their sick leave balance as financial security for themselves and their family. By increasing their balances, employees will be able to cover the 90 day elimination period before long-term disability applies in cases of long-term illness or injury. Since implementation in the AFSCME union there has been a decrease in sick leave usage of 8.9% and an increase in those employees sick leave balances of 30.3%. This will also eliminate a disparity between non-represented employees and union employees. Chair Johnson asked for clarification of the shared sick leave program. Sue responded that the Shared Leave program only allows donation of annual leave. She explained that the sick leave is an unfunded liability and those cities that have allowed for the donation of sick leave are trying to move away from it. Clark moved to recommend adoption of the proposed sick leave incentive program for non-represented employees. Epperly seconded the motion which passed with a vote of 3-0. Health Insurance Contract Approval Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Fowler stated that the Blue Cross contract renewal occurs every January 1 and requested approval of the renewal for the Mayor's signature. She noted that the fees have increased by 3% for Blue Cross's services for administering the contract of which 90% of the employees participate. She added that they are currently running at about 75% of expected claims. Epperly moved to recommend approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign the Contract Administration Agreement Renewal for 1997 with Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska. Clark seconded the motion. Johnson OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. January 1 -5, 1997 called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously 3-0. Mayor's Salary Change Proposal Chair Johnson stated that at the annual Council retreat this issue was discussed and the item had been referred by the City Council in December back to this Committee. Johnson asked if there were any questions or further discussion since this is an item on the table. McFall noted that the information in the agenda was from previous discussion. For the sake of discussion, Clark moved that the Mayor's salary be set at$80,000, including the right of deferred comp as other employees have, taking effect in January of 1998. Epperly seconded the motion. Clark stated that there has been a lot of discussion of this item including the different forms of City/Mayor structure in surrounding cities. He noted the bottom line is we have significantly grown and are now the tenth largest Washington city with all the additional responsibilities. He also emphasized that even with this proposal we are not the highest in salary and this is a reasonable proposal. Johnson added that those cities are also smaller and agreed that the city has grown and the Mayor's salary should recognize that. After further discussion, Johnson called for a vote and the motion passed 3-0. McFall noted that this proposal can only be adopted by ordinance and asked if the item should be under Other Business on the Council Agenda or the Consent Calendar. Johnson directed the City Attorney to prepare the Ordinance to increase the Mayor's salary in 1998 and stated the item should be under Other Business on the agenda. November Financial Report Finance Director May Miller reviewed the November Financial Report with the Committee. During her review she noted that General Fund revenue was 5.9% over budget for November while expenditures are 2.3% under budget. She noted that the November report does not reflect the settlement of the Police contract. While reviewing page 12 Miller noted that sales tax ended November 13% over budget Aith the one time only settlements while page 13 shows the figure at 10.8% when one time revenue is backed out. After reviewing the sales tax by category on page 14, May noted the need for caution as the exemptions passed by the legislature may be taken at year end. Clark asked for the status of the tax increase for funding of corridors. McFall noted that the street tax is ongoing except for the 3/10 of 1% for teen programs and the 1% for streets which is in place until 2004. Clark noted his concern on the street portion. McFall agreed and stated that Wickstrom had asked for funding as long as possible and will bring the item back to continue to maintain concurrency. After May concluded her report, McFall noted the need to follow up the budget report with the continued grave concerns over the tax exemptions. He stated that his approach is still cautious and pessimistic until the final year end reports are received. Miller added that the State is still struggling with establishing the rules and their may be adjustments down the line that may or may not be in the city's favor. Although the legislature has passed the exemptions, it has been complicated to define the exact rules for the exemptions. Johnson asked if there were any additional items to be discussed. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Paee 2 BRENDA JACOBER s� ('Please put in Council agenda CITY of packet) i Jim White, Mayor maIra CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES December 10, 1996 Planning Committee Members Present: Oily Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Other Planning Staff Connie Epperly Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Rodger Anderson Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Gary Volchok TIMELINES FOR AMENDMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the current state regulations for the amendment of GMA Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Satterstrom also explained the current application process for the City of Kent. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that the City is set up to allow annual amendments.'The state requires Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be no more frequent than once per year. Mr. Satterstrom explained that one of the conditions for approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that there is new information or a change in conditions or circumstances. The Committee discussed alternatives to reducing the frequency of amendments. Mr. Satterstrom explained that to the applicant amendments are not allowed frequent enough and to those who oppose certain applications amendments are allowed too often. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich stated that state law allows a City to increase the time period between amendments. The Committee discussed the issue involving an applicant's ability to reapply again and again after the City has denied their request. Board member Tim Clark commented on the time and resources involved to continually deny the same application. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether there is any way to restrict how often an application can be made if the City has previously denied the application. Ms. Evezich agreed to research this issue and bring information back to the Committee. POSITION ON AGRICULTURAL TURAL PRESERVATION (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the position statement written that was in the agenda packet regarding the Council members stand on the preservation of agricultural lands. Mr. Satterstrom identified existing policy statements in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the City's process for acquiring agricultural lands. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent does not have a program established to purchase development rights. "04th AVE.SO_ !KENT.WASHINGTON 99032-5895 1 TELEPHONE ,'_061%59.33001 FAX 4 M59-7331 City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 2 Satterstrom stated that State law requires cities to have either a purchase of development rights program (PDR) or a transfer of development rights program (TDR) if the City designates land for long term agricultural use. The City has formally requested the County to reinstate the PDR program so properties in the Kent valley will be eligible. The County responded that some money has been set aside for purchase of property in the lower Green River valley. Purchase of property within the City limits would not be eligible; however, the County has agreed to work with the City to establish a TDR program. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and member Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to research a PDR or TDR programs. Committee member Jon Johnson discussed his concern regarding lands in Kent's potential annexation area that will never be farmed and he would like to have a policy established to address these issues as well. Clark AMENDED and Johnson SECONDED the amendment to include consideration of a policy that would establish compatible uses for lands designated for agricultural use which owners would like development alternatives. Motion carried. Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend the Council adopt the City's position statement on the preservation of agricultural lands. Motion carried. ANNEXATION POLICY (F. Satterstrom) Chair Orr explained that this item is on the agenda as an information item only. Planning Mananger Fred Satterstrom outlined the area designated as the City's potential annexation area (PAA) and located three current annexations in progress within the PAA. Satterstrom explained that there is approximately nine square miles of unincorporated King County left in the PAA. Mr. Satterstrom explained that Planning Director James Harris worked to develop the existing annexation policy and the proposed amendments being presented to the Committee today. Satterstrom indicated that Mr. Harris has tried to lay out a systematic way in which to annex the remaining unincorporated areas. The proposed policy would promote larger area annexations that could pay for themselves so there is minimum or no impact on the level of service for existing residents and avoiding the smaller area by area annexations. The policy supports an annexation with a diversity of land use in each annexation area. Committee member Tim Clark voiced his concern limiting annexations by the criteria listed in the proposed annexation policy. Clark stated that if there exists minimum or no impact on the level of service although an area does not meet all of the criteria the City should annex that area regardless of the size of the area. Clark indicated that he understands the guiding pricipie; yet he is concerned with the justification the City will give citizens as to why one annexation is accepted and another is not. City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained that the purpose behind establishing this policy is to establish criteria or guidelines for accepting or denying certain annexations. Clark stated that in general he agrees with this philosophy; however, the policy should allow for certain exceptions. Brubaker suggested that language could be written in to allow for certain exceptions. Satterstrom agreed that certain exceptions could exist where the City would benefit from the annexation. Satterstrom suggested that staff could consider different wording or possibly accept each petition on a case by case basis at the time of the 10%petition. Clark was concerned with citizen reaction regarding the City receiving a 10% petition and the application being denied because it doesn't meet the requirements. However, Clark indicated that he understands the City's inability to piece mill everything. Chair Orr discussed her concern with an inconsistency of time frames; one indicating 20 years and the other 2007 (which is only 10 years). She was also concerned with the verbiage of the City conducting a"vigorous" annexation policy while the state statutes maintain the citizen's rights to greatly control annexations. Orr questioned whether identifying citizens living in the PAA area to help facilitate annexations meant that the City was going to go out and recruit citizens in order to get annexations to happen. She stated that she doesn't think this is something that the City should be doing. Clark concurred with Orr's concerns. He stated that the majority of complaints he heard regarding the Meridian Annexation was that once the citizens signed a no protest covenant they lost their rights He stated that that comment was repeated constantly. Clark commented that this policy paints the City in an image that we are agressively seeking annexations. Orr agreed that if we follow the proposed policy we would be agressively seeking annexations and that concerned her. Clark agreed. Brubaker explained that he is on the City's annexation committee and that one of the reasons surrounding an adjustment to the City's approach on annexations is pressure from the County. The County is taking a very active stance on requiring cities to extend municiple services within potential annexation areas even before an annexation has occurred. The County is stating that if the City doesn't provide the service to these areas then the County will not provide service to these areas either. Orr questioned whether the County would be able to follow through with that. Brubaker stated that it was his opinion that their position is not as strong as thev think it is; however, they are the County and they are very powerful. City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 4 Brubaker explained that if the City is required through regulation or law to provide service to our PAA, the Administration believes that the citizen's motivation to annex is gone. What benefit to citizens receive in supporting an annexation if they are already receiving municipal services? Therefore, the City is proposing a more agressive annexation policy. Orr suggested including verbiage to indicate that if the County requires the City to provide services then the City will vigorously pursue annexation. She stated that if the County requires us to provide services it would be in the City's best interest to pursue annexation. If Kent is required to provide services to the PAA areas, then we need to receive the revenue from these areas. Chair Leona Orr stated that according to the information presented past annexations are not paying their own way rather the City is losing money. Orr questioned whether the numbers were accurate or if they may have been transposed. She questioned whether the budget figures presented included the debt incurred from the purchase of the Fire station and Parks within the Meridian Annexation area. Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would look into that more thoroughly and let the Committee know. MORATORIUM ON COMMUNICATION TOWERS (T. Brubaker) City Attomey Tom Brubaker passed out a draft Resolution and explained that the City of Kent is facing a telecommunications revolution. Similar to what has happened over the past ten years with personal computers. The development of fiber optic cables and wireless communication devices and wide open competition is going to explode on the scene. Cable providers will be providing telephone service and telephone providers will be providing cable service. All the providers will be providing data transmitters to allow communication between computers. Power companies may get into play. There is wide open competition. Much of the City's authority has been trimmed significantly by a law passed earlier this year by the Federal Government. Mr. Brubaker explained that one of the major issues is the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities. The concern is with the imminent antennas that will begin to appear throughout the region. This is a new issue. In order to move forward in the telecommunication era companies are going to need to erect antennas on buildings and hilltops as well as stand alone towers. There exists a public safety and health concern as well as an aesthetic concern. Mr. Brubaker stated that the purpose of the Moratorium is to allow the City some time to consider the impacts and to consider the different options available. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the exclusion of short wave radios. Mr. Brubaker stated that it should be clarified in the Resolution to exclude them. Mr. Clark also questioned homeowners purchasing direct satellite. Mr. Brubaker explained that it would not be a part of this moratorium City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 5 because a homeowner would not need a land use development permit to obtain a personal satellite dish. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether Mr. Brubaker would be available to present a small bit of information to the Council that evening to explain the need for this Moratorium. Mr. Brubaker stated that he would be available. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Chair Leona Orr SECONDED a motion to bring this item to the City Council under"other business"to set a public hearing date. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. U:\DOC\PCOIvBMINUTES\PCO121O.MIN