Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 12/08/1998 �alll we µ CRY of Kent Cat Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF 3 Mayor Jim White Councilmernbers Leona Orr, President E° Sandy A,modt Connie Ep►perly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling �a 31 a December 8, 19,98 , x Office of the City Clerk ,s3•I=r I CITY OF._EI�Jd"aJ4T SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 8, 1998 IN VICTA Council Chambers Mayor Jim White 7 : 0 0 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Drinking Driver Task Force Presentation B. Introduction of Mayor ' s Appointees C . Employee of the Month 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Accounts Receivable Write-Offs D. Petty Cash/Change Fund Amendment - Ordinance E. Kent Reporter/City Newsletter Contract - Approval F. Software Maintenance Contract - Approval G. Wide Area Network Equipment Purchase - Approval H. PC Purchase - Approval I . Parks System Software Purchase - Approval Y J TCI Merger with AT&T - Resolution K. Lodging Tax - Ordinance L. Tenant/Facility Improvement Budget - Approval M. 1998 Budget Adjustment - Ordinance N . 1999 City Art Plan and Five-Year City Art Plan - Accept 0. Arts Commission Membership - Ordinance P . Pets in Parks - Ordinance Q. Land Use & Planning Board Reappointments - Confirmation R. Human Services Commission Appointment & Reappointments - Confirmation S . Drinking Driver Task Force Appointments & Reappointments - Confirmation T. Regional Justice Center Citizens Advisory Committee Reappointment - Confirmation U . Kent-Meridian High School Sanitary Sewer Repair - Accept as Complete V. LID 349, S . 223rd Street Sanitary Sewer - Accept as Complete W. Consolidated Food Management Contract - Approval of Extension X. Bicycle Board Appointment - Confirmation (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. 1999 Tax Levy Capacity Protection - Ordinance B. 1999 Tax Increase for Inflation - Ordinance C. 1999 Tax Levy - Ordinance D. 1999 Budget - Ordinance E. Pacific Heights Final Plat F. Mixed Use Development G. Ketola Regulatory Review - Approval H. TM Investment Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendment - Expiration of Approval I . Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions - Ordinance and Resolution J. Bureau of Justice Administration Grant Application - Approval 8 . BIDS - C a, 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION Pendi (%5 �_ + fin4 mi 13 . ADJOURNMENT ) NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk ' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page . Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service call 1-800-635-9993 or the City of Kent (253) 854-6587 . .......... CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC ............. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) Drinking Driver Task Force Presentation B) Introduction of Mayor ' s Appointees C) Employee of the Month Statement of the Steering Committee of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force As advisors on highway safety issues in Kent and surrounds, we are entrusted with important responsibilities. Parents look to us to maintain environments in which their children can travel and play in safety. Students look to us to provide opportunities for learning and peer education. Officers look to us for support of training and emphasis events. Taxpayers look to us to ensure that their substantial investment in highway safety education is well spent. As we provide recommendations to the mayor and city council, citizens, and staff, our community leadership is critical to changing behavior which increasingly threatens our mobility. It is in this context that we address the problems caused by the inappropriate, unhealthy and/or illegal use of our roadways. Alcohol and other drug abuse, and the many problems that arise from it, are among the most serious issues facing Washington motorists. Many of our most serious safety and legal problems are linked to high risk, high consumption drinking. Therefore, we hereby express our continued commitment: 1) To address the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and the social, health and legal consequences. 2) To reach out to campus, community and state-level groups to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for prevention. 3) To support collaborations with institutions, agencies and associations within our community by appointing representatives to participate in coalition building. 4) To ensure the safety of our streets and highways remains a high priority in our community and that health promotion programs which support role modeling and leadership receive our continued commitment and support. Adopted this 16th Day of November, 1998. — Councilmerrfber Judy Woods Task Force Chair comstate 11198 ..�..,........ ......... CONSENT CALENDAR 6. City Council Action: Councilmember (tro) moves, Councilmember /AJ seconds that Consent Calendar items A through rr X be approved. /ip � Discussion (�Cl•w� �r+ + ' V- l Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 17 , 1998 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through November 16 and paid on November 16 after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 17, 1998 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/16/98 208494-208776 $ 675, 309 . 85 11/16/98 208777-209144 2 , 435, 108 . 49 $3, 110, 418 . 34 Approval of payment of the bills received through November 30 and paid on November 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 1, 1998 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/30/98 209145-209382 $ 850, 105 . 30 11/30/98 209383-209751 1, 894 , 884 . 32 $2, 744 , 989 . 62 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 1 through November 15 and paid on November 20, 1998 : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/20/98 Checks 231725-232040 $ 246, 381 . 01 11/20/98 Advices 72671-73221 797, 387 . 49 $1, 043, 768 . 50 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington. November 17 , 1998 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p .m. by Mayor White . Present : Councilmembers Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr and Woods, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Director Harris, Finance Director Miller and Parks Director Hodgson. Approximately 35 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Lions Club Presentation. Don Fry, Lions Club COMMUNICATIONS President, 12803 231st Way, thanked the Mayor and Council for helping them development a community that it is a pleasure to live in. He then presented Mayor White, Finance Director Miller, and Parks Director Hodgson a final check in the amount of $11, 000, for a total of $33, 000 that the Lions Club has donated for the skate park. Mayor White thanked Fry and noted that the Lions Club has set the model for future skate parks . Bible Week. Mayor White read a proclamation noting that the Bible is the foundational document of the Judeo-Christian principles upon - which our nation was conceived, and proclaimed November 22-29, 1998 as Bible Week in the City of Kent . CONSENT ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A CALENDAR through I, with the exception of Item F which was removed and placed under Other Business . Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 3, 1998 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) SANITATION Cherrywood Lane. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for Cherrywood Lane submitted by W. E. Ruth Corporation for continuous operation and maintenance of 903 feet of watermain, 1, 191 feet of sanitary sewer, 683 feet of street improve- ments and 1, 060 feet of storm sewers and release bonds after expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 114th Avenue Southeast & Southeast 264th Street . 1 Kent City Council Minutes November 17 , 1998 WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) Tacoma Water Supply Project Interim Funding Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to direct staff to increase the previous authorization ($791, 000) associated with the design work of the Tacoma Second Supply Project to $975, 160, in order to keep the project moving ahead towards a 2004 completion date, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee . SOLID WASTE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) Tri-Star Disposal, Change In Control . GRANT consent to the acquisition of Tri-Star Disposal by Waste Management, Inc. as required under Section 4 . 4 . 2 of the existing contract between the City and Tri-Star. Section 4 . 4 . 2 of the City ' s contract with Tri- Star Disposal provides that any change in control or controlling interest in ownership of the company must have the consent of the City or the contract shall be in default . Tri-Star is being sold to Waste Management, Inc. Therefore, City consent is required. PUBLIC WORKS (BIDS - ITEM 8B) Green River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse And Storage Shed Construction. Bid opening for this project was held on November 12th with three bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by R. L. Bates Construction, Inc . in the amount of $119, 460 . 00 . The Engineer ' s estimate was $123, 184 . 98 . The Public Works Director recommends that this contract be awarded to R. L. Bates Construction, Inc. WOODS MOVED that the Green River Nursery Greenhouse, Hoophouse and Storage Shed Construction contract be awarded to R. L. Bates Construction, Inc . for the bid amount of $119, 460 . 00 . Amodt seconded and the motion carried. 2 Kent City Council Minutes November 17 , 1996 TRANSPORTATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) S . 277th Corridor Project (LID 351) . A property owner ' s meeting was held on November 5th regard- ing the LID assessments associated with the S . 277th Street Corridor. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker explained that the November 5th meeting was the first of many opportunities for property owners to provide input to the City and was generated as the result of a six-month notice that was sent out by the City to all affected property owners regarding their option to conduct a transportation study. He explained the LID process, noting that the notice goes out six months before the formation of the LID . He said another meeting with pro- perty owners will be held in January. Brubaker noted that the November 5th informal open house was intended to be loosely constructed with lots of staff available to answer any questions anyone could have, and to have one-on-one dialogue with affected property owners so their specific questions could be answered. He noted that after two hours no one remained and no one else came to the meeting between 6 : 15 and 7 : 00 p.m. , although staff remained until 7 : 00 . He said that the City has received complaints about how the meeting was set up, and that if people want a more formalized process, such a meeting could be set up in a location convenient to them. Brubaker then outlined the history of the project, noting that in the early 1980 ' s infra- structure was not being built at the same pace as development was, resulting in a massive increase in traffic coming off East Hill into the valley. He explained that an Environmental Mitigation Agreement was developed stating that instead of building many localized improvements, the developers would build certain necessary improve- ments to impact their development and would also agree to participate in a corridor project when the Local Improvement District was formed. He clarified that the EMA' s were based on the number 3 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION of new trips which were generated by the develop- ment . He outlined the main points of the Environmental Mitiga_-= Agreement and explained how the assess�ent ar .._ .t was figure . He pointed out that one the points was that the developer had the option to conduct a secondary traffic study once their development was complete so they could demonstrate to the city that the number of trips generated by their development was actually less than originally estimated. He added that an obligation to pay the assessment is also included in the EMA. He noted that the agreement is affixed to the property, not to the individuals . Brubaker then explained that the City cannot track title to property and that the best way they knew of at the time to provide notice to property owners was to record the agreements with the County. He said some new developments chose to prepay, and some did not generate new trips . He explained why some pr-~erties have $0 assess- ments, and that property _n the county was required to prepay. He explained that the benefit for the City and the community is that the impacts of the development would be mitigated and there would be a long-term solution to transportation impacts . Brubaker noted that the City will fund approxi- mately 700 of the cost of the project, and that, if desired, payment of the assessments can �De made over the life of the LID, which will be for either ten or fifteen years . He explained that on most agreements the cost per residence is approxima7ely $1600 . He said that the first payment would be due in the summer of the year 2000, and that the amount of the payment will decline each year. Stephen Hull, 24224 95th Place South, represent- ing the Walnut Grove community, asked why the city did not give the same opportunity for the current unpaid EMA owners to pay their assess- ments prior to 1996 while the city was accepting 4 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION payments, why the city waited 7-9 years before notifying the property owners that they must pay this assessment, whether the amount of the assessment will continue to increase based on the CPI until the city finalizes the LID, why no Councilmembers were at the informational meeting on November 5th, and why an area near Walnut Grove was not included on the map. He said the November 5th meeting did not adequately address their concerns . He pointed out that Senators Patterson and Keiser were at the meeting and are now looking at ways of drafting new legisiat_on to address this problem. He submitted a list of questions and concerns, and said it is his understanding that the developer had no financial responsibility for the development or improve- ments to the road system. He urged the City to send another notification to all unpaid EMA property owners and hold a more formal meeting. Mike Nielson, 9725 S . 262nd Place, asked that the Council examine the use of EMAs, suggested that all should be prepaid, and noted that they are easily lost in title searches . Adrienne Lindblad, 26321 97th Avenue South, said the city let the developer walk away without paying any costs of the corridor and that the burden is now on the property owners . She displayed her title agreement and said it is inadequate from a dis- closure standpoint . George Smith, 9505 S . 241st Street, said the EMAs are a three-party agreement and that the party who did not sign it has the liability. He said the map displayed at the November 5th meeting was incomplete, and that answers to questions at that meeting were unclear. Dave Upthegrove, Legislative Assistant to Senator Julia Patterson of the 33rd Legislative District, said Senator Patterson is concerned about the financial impact and felt the notification pro- cess was not adequate . He said she is willing to work with the city and home owners to change laws if necessary, and encouraged the Council and home owners to contact her. Mayor White asked 5 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION Upthegrove to let Senator Patterson know that the city appreciates her offer to help and will be in contact with her. Brad Epperly, 10212 S . 242nd Place, agreed that the November 5th meeting was not done well and that people did not get answers to their questions . He asked what constitutes a trip, why the amount per trip is different for property owners, and who is responsible, the developer or the home owner. He questioned the statement in the letter that home owners have no legal recourse, and asked what future surprises there may be . He spoke about being able to pay now to save future interest rates, and said the whole community should be involved. The Mayor pointed out that there will be oppor- tunities for input in the future . Brubaker then answered Hull ' s questions by explaining that property owners have an obligation to pay and that the assessment can be prepaid at any time, that the word "developer" also applies to home owners, that the city cannot control what the title companies print, that the obligation will increase incrementally, based on the Consumer Price Index, that Councilmembers were not at the November 5th meeting because it was intended to be an informational meeting where everyone could get their questions answered and that staff was available to do so, that he will get back to Mr. Hull regarding the 242nd Court property, and that another meeting can be held in a different format . Brubaker then noted for Mr. Nielson that Council will take re-examination of the use of EMAs under consideration. He explained for Ms . Lindblad that the city did not intend to act as the developer and that it was not their intent to deceive. He explained that property owners had notice through the title report, received a six- month notice before formation, and that there will be notice of the formation, notice of the preliminary assessment and notice of the final assessment, which is more notice than is required under state law for a local improvement district . 6 Kent City Council Minutes November 17 , 1998 TRANSPORTATION Brubaker noted that all new construction is required to mitigate the impacts of development and that most sign Environmental Mitigation Agreements . He said this fee will be the only fee imposed for the 277th Street corridor and that a p.m. peak hour trip is any trip to or from your property between the hours of 3 : 00 and 7 : 00 p.m. on a week day. Brubaker explained the option to conduct a traffic study and offered the paperwork necessary to provide information demonstrating that they do not generate any trips . He noted that this project is a pressure relief valve, which is why properties far away are affected, and that some property owners pay more because of the condi- tions of a rezone. He ex_lained that this is not a lien but an encumbrance on the property, and that when it is paid it is cleared from the title. Upon the Mayor ' s question, Wickstrom explained that Top Foods has an agreement and that the map displayed at the meeting was not totally accurate . Mayor White asked the Public Works Committee to investigate other ways of funding in the future. Orr agreed. WOODS MOVED to make the letters from Mr. Nielsen, Mike and Julie Gillespie, and Stephen Hull part of the record. Epperly seconded. Orr made a friendly amendment to include all material received this evening . Woods and Epperly agreed and the motion carried. Orr then explained that it was her understanding that the November 5th meeting was informational and that at some point during the process the Council acts as judge and jury to make the final decision on L. I . D. s . She said she therefore felt it was best not to attend, so that property owners could gather information without the political arena being part of the process . She assured citizens it is not because Councilmembers _. are not interested. The City Attorney then 7 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION explained the quasi-judicial issue to the public, and noted that at a certain point the Council is prohibited from having communication with the parties involved in the L. I . D. process . Upon Amodt ' s request, Brubaker reiterated that a six-month notice has been given, that transporta- tion studies can be conducted, affidavits regarding trips can be completed, that staff is available to answer questions at any time, and that another meeting including a presentation will be held in January or sooner. He added that when the six-month option to conduct an alterna- tive study has elapsed, staff will ask Council to consider forming the Local Improvement District . He added that there will be a hearing at a regular Council meeting, and if it is formed preliminary assessments will be determined and provided, and later a final assessment roll will be developed and provided, and that a quasi- judicial hearing on the final assessment roll will be held before the Council or a Council committee to finalize the roll . He said a municipal bond would then be obtained to fund the commitments and construction would begin approxi- mately one year after formation. Prepayment could then be made or the first payment would then be due. Mayor White suggested that the Public Works Department correct the map and that the Legal Department contact the title companies and urge them to do a better job of explaining to the public. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) S . 277th Corridor Condemnation. The City previously adopted Ordinance No. 3422 authorizing condemnation by eminent domain proceedings for property necessary for construction of the 277th corridor. Staff has subsequently determined that one additional property should have been included in that ordinance. This separate condemnation ordinance adds this 277th Street corridor project 8 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION to the list of remaining properties that may be subject to condemnation if the City cannot negotiate a settlement first . CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3423 authorizing condemnation by eminent domain pro- ceedings for property necessary to construction the 277th Street Corridor . Woods seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) (ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK) Transportation Improvement Board Grant for 196th Street Corridor project, West Valley Highway to East Valley Highway. Wickstrom noted that this item was discussed at the Operations Committee today and that action needs to be taken by November 30th. He explained that the grant is for the 196th Street Corridor middle phase, and is for reimbursement of costs incurred. He noted that the amount of the grant is $1, 293, 051 . CLARK commended Wickstrom for aggressively seek- ing grants and MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement for the construction phase of the 196th Street corridor project, and direct staff to accept the grant and to establish a budget in the amount of $1, 293, 051 . Woods seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7D) (ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK) Freight Mobility Systems improvement Study. Wickstrom noted that this item was discussed by the Operations Committee today, who recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the state . He explained that the City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and added some conditions, and that the Chamber of Commerce has asked the City to be involved. CLARK acknowledged the 'Leadership of Councilmember Yingling and MOVED to authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for the Freight Mobility Systems Improvement Study, subject to the Chamber of Commerce complying with certain 9 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 TRANSPORTATION requirements established by the City Attorney, and to direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget in the amount of $90, 000 for same . Woods seconded and the motion carried. LAND USE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7F) (REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY CITY ATTORNEY LUBOVICH) 1724 Regulations , Land Use S Planning. The Land Use and Planning Board has recommended adoption of an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, adopting new administrative procedures for the processing of project permit applications as required by the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 347 1995 Laws of Washington, describing genera' requirements for a complete application; allowing for optional consolidated permit processing, describing the process for issuance of a notice of application, setting forth the initial steps to the determination of consistency with the development regulations in SEPA, setting a timeframe for the issuance of project permits; describing the required public notice procedures for a public hearing; establishing a process for the conduct of an open record hearing and closed record decisions and appeal, describing the process for issuance of a notice of decision, adding a new Chapter 12 . 01 to the Kent City Code, in order to implement the new project permit administrative procedures, and repealing existing notice, process, and appeals provisions in Chapters 2 . 32, 11 . 03, 12 . 04 , 12 . 07 , 15 . 06, 15 . 08 and 15 . 09 . The City Attorney explained that this issue has not been to a Council committee and said there are some small technical errors to be corrected in the ordinance. Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department explained that this ordinance relates to the implementation of the Regulatory Reform Act . He noted that Chapter 12 . 01 contains the basic provisions for implementation of 1724 , and that 10 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 LAND USE other parts of the City Code are affected. He noted that these provisions only relate to major development permits and land use permits . O ' Neill pointed out that on page 90 part of the ordinance regarding notice was shown stricken and should be re-inserted. Upon questions from Orr, it was noted that calendar days and working days mentioned in the ordinance conform to State law, that the word "multiple" on page 92 could be changed to "multi" , and that satellite dish antennas are measured in meters . CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3424 with amendments as presented to Council, adopting new administrative procedures for processing permit applications as required by the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 347 1995 Laws of Washington. Orr seconded and the motion carried. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Pacific Heights Final Plat FSU-96-22 . SET December 8, 1998 , as the date for a public meeting to consider the final plat application submitted by Pacific Industries, for the Pacific Heights Final Plat . The City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on February 17 , 1998 . PUBLIC DEFENSE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Public Defense Services Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to finalize and execute a contract for public defense services with Scott Stewart for a term of two years in a form and with terms substantially similar to the proposed contract . The City ' s current contract for public defense services at the Municipal Court expires December 31, 1998 . Staff has negotiated a new two-year contract with the current contractor, Scott Stewart, to provide these services at the same cost as the current contract . The City will pay $16, 500 per month plus the cost of appeals such as the cost of transcripts . The contract has a ninety day cancellation provision for both parties . 11 Kent City Council Minutes November 17 , 1998 ADULT RETAIL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) Adult Retail Establishment Moratorium. On November 3, 1998 , the City Council passed Resolution No . 1520 imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for the issuance of any business license or building, land use, or development permit for adult retail establish- ments . State law authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums, provided a public hearing is held within sixty days of adoption. This date has been set as the date for a public hearing on this matter. After making findings, the Council may either continue the moratorium for the full six- month term or terminate the moratorium. City Attorney Lubovich explained that this deals with adult book stores, video stores and novelty shops, not other areas such as exotic dance studios . He noted that studies have been done which indicate that these types of facilities have an impact on the community. He said research is still being done and recommended letting the moratorium proceed for the full six months . Lubovich also noted that he has dis- tributed copies of the resolution containing an added section regarding temporary use permits in order to eliminate any constitutional challenges to the moratorium. He also requested authoriza- tion to enter into an agreement with a number of other jurisdictions to establish a model ordi- nance. He said the cost would be $2 , 750 . 00 . Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED for passage of Resolution No. 1521 as submitted at this meeting adopting findings which the Council hereby specifically approves, and continuing the moratorium established in Resolution No. 1520 passed on November 3, 1998, relating to adult retail establishments; and further authorizing the City Attorney to enter 12 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 ADULT RETAIL into a joint defense agreement with terms and in the form substantially similar to the proposed agreement . Orr seconded. Clark commended the Law Department in their handling of this issue . His motion then carried. REGIONAL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7E) GOVERNANCE (ADDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ORR) Suburban Cities Resolution. Orr noted receipt of a resolution from Chuck Booth, President of the Suburban Cities Association. McFall explained that this has to do with on-going efforts to resolve the regional governance and finance issues, and that Mayor Booth will appear before the King County Council at their budget hearings to submit resolutions adopted by as many of the suburban cities as possible . He noted that the resolution states that the County Council should adopt a 1999 budget that funds their responsi- bilities as a regional service provider, that they should eliminate property tax increases that affect all citizens until all regional revenues are used for the sole purpose of regional services, that they should increase funding of regional human services to provide a basic service package to all citizens of the county, that they should reduce rather than increase staffing levels and overhead dedicated to local services to match the decline in service popula- tion in urban unincorporated areas, and that they should require that already collected revenues for road improvements in urbanized areas be used to build road improvements in those areas . The Mayor noted that support for the suburban cities ' position is strong . Clark stated that the continued incorporation of cities taking population out of unincorporated King County has created a shift where more and more citizens are taking responsibility for their own ways of life with their own local government, but that the County continues to control the funds . He urged Councilmembers to pass the resolution. 13 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 REGIONAL ORR MOVED to pass Resolution No. 1522 addressing GOVERNANCE the proposed 1999 King County Government budget . Woods seconded and the motion carried. PARKS (BIDS - ITEM 8A) Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot. Ten ( 10 ) bids were received on November 10th for the Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot Project . Staff recom- mends entering into an agreement with the low bidder, Shear Transport, Inc. , in the amount of $32, 950 . The Engineer ' s estimate was $38 , 000 . WOODS MOVED to enter into an agreement with Shear Transport, Inc . for the Lake Fenwick North Parking Lot Project in the amount of $32, 950 . Epperly seconded and the motion carried. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I ) Excused Absence. APPROVAL of an excused absence from tonight ' s meeting for Councilmember Yingling. FINANCE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) 1999 Budget and Tax Levy. This is the third public hearing on the 1999 Budget and Tax Levy. Public input is desired and welcome . The 1999 Preliminary Budget is in balance and totals approximately $124 , 000, 000 . This budget does not include a property tax increase above Referendum 47 . The Preliminary Budget document is available in the Finance and City Clerk' s Offices . Adoption is scheduled for December 8, 1998 . Finance Director Miller explained that the budget includes both the operating portion and the capital portion. She noted that the Implicit Price Deflater amount has been included in the amount of $129, 000 or . 850 . She added that the property tax levy is unknown at this time, but that she expects a decrease on the City portion of the property tax bill . She noted that the fund balance has been kept at 10% and that the City is in a healthy position. 14 Kent City Council Minutes November 17 , 1998 FINANCE Mayor White opened the public hearing . Steve Anderson, 6020 S . 237th, Vice-Chair of the Human Services Commission, thanked the Mayor and Council for their continuing support of human services in Kent . He noted that in 1986 the Ci-y distributed approximately $230, 000 to human service agencies, and that the Human Services Commission recommends funding in the amount of approximately $547 , 000 for 1999 . Cathy Peters , Regional Director for Catholic Community Services, noted that directors of other human service agencies are in attendance . She thanked the Mayor, Council and staff for their suppor7z . George Maffeo, 26314 97th Avenue South, asked about the cost of operation and overruns for the Riverbend Golf Course . McFall agreed to speak with Mr. Maffeo after the meeting. There were no further comments and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 63) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31, after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 3, 1998 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/98 207761-208027 $ 213, 926. 64 10/31/98 206028-208493 2, 463, 903 . 23 $2, 677, 829. 87 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 5, 1998 : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/5/98 Checks 231395-231724 $ 259, 572 . 78 11/5/98 Advices 72118-72670 749, 863 . 24 $1, 009, 436 . 02 15 Kent City Council Minutes November 17, 1998 REPORTS Council President. Orr announced that the next Council meeting will be on December 8, 1998 . Operations Committee. Woods announced that the next meeting will be held on December 1st and that the 1999 Budget, the Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions, and other housekeeping items will be on the agenda . Public Safety Committee. Epperly announced that the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p.m. on November 24th. Public Works and Planning Committee. Clark announced that the next meeting will be held on December 7th . Parks Committee. Woods noted that prior to the Council meeting on December 8th, there will be a major artwork dedication at 6 : 15 p.m. in the Centennial Building and encouraged everyone to attend. Administrative Reports . Mayor White said he has been approached by people in the recreational vehicle community about the feasibility of an RV park in Kent . He explained that he will create a task force to look into this and urged Council- members and citizens who are interested in serving on the task force to contact him. EXECUTIVE At 9 : 03 p.m. , the meeting recessed to executive SESSION session to discuss pending litigation for approximately ten minutes . The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 9 : 15 p.m. Brenda Jaco er CMC City Clerk 16 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITE-OFFS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the write-offs for 1997 past due accounts receivables of $19, 122 . 80, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memo from Finance Director and worksheets 4 . RECONWENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Co=ission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: i . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 6C CITY OF:Ll 4 1 Date: November 10, 1998 To: Operations Committee From: May Miller, Finance Director Subject: COUNCIL APPROVED WRITE-OFFS The State Auditor recommends that we write off uncollectable accounts over one year old. This year the write-off request for miscellaneous accounts receivable has substantially increased over last year's request mainly due to unpaid invoices associated with traffic accidents that damaged city property. The total amount of requested write-offs for 1998 is $19,122.80 with$18,521 of this amount due to traffic accidents. The larger amounts were incurred by California residents. The individuals have left California with no forwarding address. We have tagged both Washington and California state driver's licenses to prevent renewals but believe these accounts are uncollectable. There were also two unpaid sponsorships. In order to maintain our relationship with sponsors, heavy handed collection efforts are not advisable; therefore, I recommend writing-off these two accounts totaling $350. The remaining items to be written-off total $251.80. The following is a summary of the write-off requests for the last seven years: 1992 $53,351.59 1993 $17,574,83 1994 8,520.11 1995 1,846.25 1996 5,084.06 1997 4,114.95 1998 19,122.80 Attached is a copy of our current collection procedures and a detailed list of the accounts to be written off. If you need any additional information, please let me know. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the write-off for 1997 past due accounts receivables of$19,122.80. Aging Schedule - 1998 Write-offs November 6, 1998 1:44 PM Fund Org Date Customer Amount Service Invoice Number 001 6200 02-Apr-97 Port City Express 100.00 Sponsorship 16760 001 6660 16-Apr-97 Snow, Brett 873.57 Accident 17295 001 6714 04-Jun-97 White River Valley 250.00 Sponsorship 17428 001 5530 18-Jul-97 Acosta, Francisco 1,189.20 Accident 17633 001 5528 22-Jul-97 Kang, Changwan 15,884.20 Accident 17570 001 5530 13-Aug-97 Collins, Corey 444.05 Accident 17720 001 -Total: $ 18,741.02 410 5550 25-Sep-97 Merryman, Gregg 73.57 Accident 17874 410 5550 25-Sep-97 Bowron Company 50.40 Hydrant Permit 17876 410 -Total: $ 123.97 440 5560 25-Sep-97 Merryman, Gregg 56.41 Accident 17874 440 5595 03-Oct-97 Laser Construction 68.65 Install Padlocks 17882 440 5595 21-Dec-97 Swanson Homes 54.54 Install Padlocks 18315 440 -Total: $ 179.60 R87 5510 01-Apr-97 Williams, Raymond &Amy 78.21 Rent 17307 R87 -Total: $ 78.21 Total -1998 Write-offs: $ 19,122.80 The Citv's Collection Process (Miscellaneous Invoices) 1. Invoices are mailed throughout the month. Invoices are all due on the 15th (fifteenth) of the following month. 2. Each month on or about the 15th (fifteenth) of the month a collection letter is sent out on each delinquent account. The letters vary in intensity based on the level of delinquency. If a phone number is available then the customer may be called. 3. If after several attempts we have still not received payment from the customer the department that issued the invoice is notified. At this point the issuing department may write a letter or call the customer directly. 4. The Attorney's Office is notified of delinquent invoices of significant amounts. If the Attorney's Office deems the invoice collectable, they may take the individual or company to court to recoup the invoiced amount or they may recommend transferring the account to a collection agency. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PETTY CASH/CHANGE FUND AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the transfer of $1, 500 from the Change Fund to the Petty Cash Fund, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director, worksheet and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D CITY or)7J%JU� Date: November 12, 1998 To: Operations Committee \ , From: May Miller, Finance Director ` I Subject: PETTY CASH AND CHANGE FUNDS AMENDMENT After checking with all departments. I am recommending transfer of$1,500 from the unallocated Change Fund to the unallocated Petty Cash fund in order to better manage requests for transactions throughout the city. The growth and activity of the various departments in the city require that monies be flexible between the established funds. Current Recommended Petty Cash Fund $1,800 $3,300 Change Fund 5,000 3.500 $6,800 $6,800 Attached is a detail of the Petty Cash and Change Fund accounts. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the transfer of$1,500 from the change Fund to the Petty Cash Fund. CITY OF KENT UPDATE 1115/98 SUMMARY OF PETTY CASH/CHANGE FUNDS EFF.NEW ORD #3378 ENDING 12/31/98 START Recommend ENDING FUND ORDINANCE 1/1/98 transfer TOTALS NUMBER Petty Cash Accounts $ 1,800.00 #3378 Finance 111 950.00 950.00 Jail 112 75.00 75.00 Fire 113 75.00 75.00 Shops 114 200.00 200.00 Commons 115 100.00 100.00 Senior Center 116 100.00 100.00 Parks Mtc 117 100.00 100.00 Pub Wks Admin 120 100.00 100.00 Parks Resource Center$ 122 100.00 100.00 Kent Municipal Court$ 123 Unallocated 0.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 Total $1,800.00 $3,300.00 Change Fund Accounts $ 5,000.00 #3159 Treasurer 141 600.00 600.00 Kent Commons 144 400.00 400.00 Senior Center$ 145 100.00 100.00 Police 147 200.00 200.00 Centennial 149 400.00 400.00 Municipal Court 151 100.00 100.00 East Hill Precint 152 0.00 0.00 sub-Total 1,800.00 1,800.00 Unallocated 3,200.00 -1,500.00 1,700.00 Total $5,000.00 $3,600.00 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Sections 3.41?10 and 3.4 1.310 of the Kent City Code relating to the amount held in the City's petty cash and change account. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.41.210 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 3.41.210. Amount and authorization. The amount of the change account shall be€-wa thausand three thousand five hundred dollars($5,990-90) ($3.500.00). The finance director is hereby authorized to establish and administer the account. issue-A 6;�Aek SECTION 2. Section 3.41.310 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 3.41.310. Amount. The amount of the petty cash account shall not exceed ema-theusand eight three thousand three hundred dollars($1 808-00) ($3.300.00). axd T#he finance director is hereby authorized to establish and administer the account. 1 Petty Cash/Change Account SECTION 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to make the appropriate budget adjustments and/or transfers to establish the account as set forth in this ordinance. SECTION 4. Sever_ab►_!tt,, If any one or more sections, sub-sections, 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. SECTION 5. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of . 1998. APPROVED: day of , 1998. PUBLISHED: day of 1998. 2 Petty Cash/Change Account 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 LL.AW1Ordin mpemc h ord.dm Petty Cash/ChangeAccount Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT REPORTER/CITY NEWSLETTER CONTRACT - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign the 1999 Kent Reporter contract for the publication of a monthly City newsletter . At its December 1 , 1998 meeting, the City Council Operations Committee unanimously recommended approval of the attached contract to publish a one page monthly City newsletter in the Kent Reporter. The newsletter content and layout would be completed in-house . Distribution would be to all Kent households in the incorporated boundary. The expenditure below includes the Kent Reporter contract as well operating funds for additional graphics production work and materials . 3 . EXHIBITS : Informational memo and draft contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee ( 12/1) (3-U) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $57 , 960 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1999 Budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E CITY OF KENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18, 1998 TO: Councilmember Judy Woods, Chair and Members of the Kent City Council Operations Committee FROM: Dena Laurent Government Affairs Manager SUBJECT: 1999 Kent Reporter Contract Background In 1997, the Kent Reporter began publishing a direct mail newspaper distributed to 28,000 homes in Kent. At their inception, the Kent Reporter approached the City about including a monthly City newsletter in their publication. The model they proposed was the same as they use with the City of Renton in the Renton Reporter. We brought this issue before the Operations Committee in Spring 1997, given the Council's interest and target issue regarding enhanced community outreach. The Committee chose to defer action at that time. Because the publication was new, the Committee was interested in evaluating its track record and the community's response to the publication. In Fall 1997, the Operations Committee included$43,000 in the 1998 Budget for this project, and production started in Spring, 1998. Council and community feedback on the project has been very positive. We have included a full year of funding for this project in the 1999 Budget. To ensure timely publication, it would be helpful for the Council to approve the 1999 contract, should the Council approve the 1999 Budget, at its December 8 meeting. To facilitate Council Committee review of this project, a draft contract is attached. Additional information is provided below. Project Scope The project scope includes the publication of a one page City newsletter monthly in the Kent Reporter. The content and layout is produced in-house. The content is similar to that which was included in the Kent Connections newsletter, previously published quarterly in the Parks and Recreation brochure. The project budget includes funds for the one page newsletter space each month, funds to cover the extra service from our graphics division and funds to cover printing and distribution in the incorporated boundary beyond the Kent Reporter's regular distribution area. The Kent Reporter is typically distributed to 28,000 Kent homes in the 98031 and 98032 zip codes. To reach all of our carrier routes, the City would pay an additional $210 per thousand for the extra 16,000 homes we need to reach to reach all of our citizens. The project costs break out as follows: Proiect Exaense Monthly Cost Annual Cost (12 mos.) Newsletter Space $1,200 $14,400 Add'l Copies $3,360 $40.320 Kent Reporter Subtotal $4.560 $54,720 Graphics $ 270 $ 3,240 Total Cost $4,830 $57,960 A Little Q&A... What would it cost to produce, print and mail a City Newsletter outside the Recreation brochure? To produce, print and mail a four page, 8-1/2 x 11 inch City newsletter would cost approximately $7,725 per issue (higher quality paper). To produce, print and mail a four-page tabloid size newsletter would cost $6,947 per issue. To produce, print and mail a six pace (lower quality paper) 8-1/2 x 11 inch newsletter would cost $6,994 per issue. How does the City of Renton feel about their newsletter in the Renton Reporter? The City of Renton has had a very positive experience with their newsletter, extending their latest newsletter contract for a two-year period. The City of Renton also used the Renton Reporter to conduct a mail-back survey for a fire equipment bond issue. Approximately 450 responses were returned, a excellent response rate for a mail-back survey of their size. The Kent School District also publishes a monthly newsletter in the Kent Reporter and has had very favorable feedback. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns (8594154). Agreement The CITY OF KENT and the KENT REPORTER agree to the following: _.. fhe City of Kent agrees to purchase display advertising in the Kent Reporter for the purpose of producing a City newsletter (Kent Connections) for the citizens of Kent, at a minimum frequency of once each month: and. the Kent Reporter agrees to publish and distribute at least one edition each month during the period: The term of the agreement shall cover the Kent Reporter issues of January 1999 through December 1999. The City of Kent agrees to purchase from the Kent Reporter one full page (equivalent to 80 column inches) at a monthly rate of$1,200. This price will include printing in black ink plus one extra spot color, the color to be determined by the Kent Reporter, in coordination with the City of Kent. Additional colors may be purchased for use in the ad at a cost of$75 per color, per issue. The page shall be placed in the center fold of the editions in which the City newsletter appears, unless an alternate location is agreed to by both the City of Kent and the Kent Reporter. The City of Kent will have full control over the name, editorial content, and layout of the City newsletter, and will provide the Kent Reporter with camera ready copy of the newsletter for production purposes. In each edition of the Kent Reporter that includes the City newsletter, the Kent Reporter will provide the City of Kent with a front page teaser indicating to the community that the City newsletter is included inside the newspaper. The City of Kent and the Kent Reporter will mutually review and determine postal carrier routes for the publication's delivery. This review shall ensure that the entire incorporated boundary of the City of Kent eceives the publication. These codes may be updated monthly as needed to accommodate changes in the City's incorporated boundaries. The City of Kent will provide the Kent Reporter with pictures that are to be included in the City newsletter and the Kent Reporter will provide any scanning of half tones that may be needed. The Kent Reporter agrees to direct mail 28,000 copies of the Kent Reporter to residents within the Kent city limits. Additional copies will be produced and mailed at a marginal cost of$210 per 1,000 copies. Five- hundred additional copies will be delivered to the City of Kent for the City's use at no extra cost. The Kent Reporter also agrees to provide the City of Kent with certification from the post office verifying the number of copies mailed when requested by city officials. City of Kent Kent Reporter 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032-5895 723 S.W. 10th St., Renton, WA 98055 Mayor Jim White, City of Kent Denis W. Law, Puget Sound Publishing DBA Kent Reporter Date Date Attest: Kent City Clerk MApproved as to legal form: Roger Lubovich. City Attorney, City of Kent Kent City Council Meetin:- Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with CIS for the maintenance of the City ' s Finance, Payroll, and Production ?.9anagement Systems, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS : Cover memo and CIS Se_-vice Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $52, 000/year SOURCE OF FUNDS: Operatinq Budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 6F Date: November 24, 1998 To: Council Operations Committee From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Service 4 Re: Finance/Payroll Software Maintenance Contract Background: At the time of the Technology Plan presentations to Council, we at the City had received notice that the Management Advisory Group (MAG)would cease to support our Finance, Payroll, and Parks systems effective December 31, 1998. The MAG group was the agency that originally sold the systems to the City, however the systems were developed by an Washington State agency now known as the Center for Information Services (CIS). It is extremely important to have a maintenance agreement for these systems so that changes can be made to the systems based on new requirements. For example: We distribute 1099 forms to many of our vendors. From year to year the layout for the 1099 forms change. As part of a software maintenance agreement those changes would automatically be made and delivered to the City. Current Situation: We have been able to negotiate a tentative agreement for software maintenance services with CIS. CIS is willing to provide software maintenance on our Finance and Payroll systems, but they are not willing to provide maintenance services for our Parks system. The costs for this and all ongoing software maintenance contracts are part of the Information Services department Operating budget. The costs for maintaining our Finance, Payroll and Production Management Systems, at $52,000/year, is comparable to what we have been paying MAG for the past several years. The CIS is our only avenue for purchasing these services. Our only alternative to this agreement would be to obtain the source code for the systems and maintain these systems with internal or consultant staff. Motion: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with CIS for the maintenance of the City's Finance, Payroll and Production Management Systems, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. y; i a j i - arfi .'A'tsTa 1. 1. t M� S a } ^sp l.r 1 Fe.. � _. I::.. '+� � I!T .. piV•. 'S:T u`d r i �! E S.wI'�� �.n. :.e i'y KM4 f��y.r *vu s;sf .r 1x 1 1'. i t � Y t � yC 'r.2*+ �. -'< �-S�ham.� y '+'"�� ,ek� � • •rr wt 1 • i 1 �fii i 1 AGREEMENT FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE & RELATED SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................1 CONTRACT TERM 2. License Grant ...........................................................................................................3 3. Term .........................................................................................................................3 4. Survivorship...............................................................................................................3 PRICING, TAXES, INVOICE AND PAYMENT 5. Pricing........................................................................................................................4 6. Taxes.........................................................................................................................4 7. Invoice and Payment ................................................................................................4 CIS RESPONSIBILITIES 8. Software Ownership .................................................................................................4 9. Installation of Software .............................................................................................4 10. Software Upgrades and Enhancements....................................................................5 11. Software Maintenance and Support Services ...........................................................5 12. Software Documentation ...........................................................................................6 13. Commitments, Warranties, and Representations......................................................7 14. Physical Media Warranty...........................................................................................7 15. Protection of CIS Confidential Information ................................................................8 16. Subpoena..................................................................................................................8 CONTRACT TERMINATION 17. Termination for Default .............................................................................................8 18. Termination for Convenience ...................................................................................9 19. Termination for Withdrawal of Authority.....................................................................9 20. Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds ...................................................................9 21. Covenant Against Contingent Fees...........................................................................9 DISPUTES AND REMEDIES 22. Disputes .................................................................................................................. 10 23. Non-Exclusive Remedies ........................................................................................11 24. Failure to Perform....................................................................................................11 25. Limitation of Liability ...............................................................................................11 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 26. Notices..................................................................................................................... 12 27. Section Headings, Incorporated Documents, and Order of Precedence.................12 28. Entire Agreement ....................................................................................................13 29. Additional Services and Software ........................................................................... 13 30. Authority for Modifications and Amendments..........................................................13 31. CIS Contract Administrator......................................................................................13 32. Purchaser Contract Administrator............................................................................13 33. Independent Status .................................................................................................14 34. Governing Law .......................................................................................................14 35. Assignment.............................................................................................................. 14 36. Publicity .................................................................................................................. 14 GENERAL 37. Save Harmless ....................................................................................................... 15 38. Compliance with Civil Rights Laws.......................................................................... 15 39. Severability ............................................................................................................. 15 40. Waiver ..................................................................................................................... 15 41. Treatment of Assets ................................................................................................15 CONTRACT EXECUTION 42. Authority to Bind ......................................................................................................16 43. Counterparts............................................................................................................16 iii AGREEMENT FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE &RELATED SERVICES NUMBER(XXX-XXX-XXXJ PARTIES This Agreement for Software Maintenance & Related Services (hereinafter referred to as "Contract") is entered into by and between City of Kent hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser" located at 220 4'" Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032-5985 and Center for Information Services, a state agency of the State of Washington, (hereinafter referred to as "CIS"), located at 3101 Northup Way, Bellevue, Washington, 98004-1449, for the purpose of providing Software Maintenance and Related Services. RECITALS Whereas, the CIS originally developed the CEI Plus Software; and, Whereas, the Purchaser originally obtained its Software Maintenance Support from Management Advisory Grc {MAG); and, Whereas, MAG has advised the Purchaser that MAG will discontinue Software Maintenance Support as of December 31, 1998; and, Whereas, the Purchaser has determined that it is in its best interest to continue to maintain the CEI Plus software; and, Whereas, the CIS has agreed .:) provide Purchaser with Software Maintenance and Related Services in support of Cal Plus. Now therefore the Purchaser awards to Center for Information Services this Software Maintenance Agreement. CIS agrees to furnish to Purchaser the Software Maintenance and other Related Services as indicated on the schedule titled, Authorized Product and Price List (attached hereto), in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract. In consideration of the mutual promises as hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definition of Terms Definitions as used throughout this Contract shall have the meanings set forth below. "Business Days and Hours" shall mean Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, except for holidays observed by the state of Washington. "CIS" shall mean Center for Information Services, its employees and agents. "CIS" also includes any firm, provider, organization, individual, or other entity performing 1 Services under this Contract. It shall also include any Subcontractor retained by CIS as permitted under the terms of this Contract. "CIS's Contract Administrator" shall mean a representative of the CIS who is assigned as the primary contact person with whom the City of Kent Contract Administrator shall work for the duration of this Contract unless replaced by another representative. "Contract" shall mean this document, all schedules and exhibits, and all amendments hereto. "Execution Date" shall mean the date of the last signature of a party to this Contract. "License" shall mean the right to use the Software which is granted by this Contract and govemed by its terms and conditions. "Licensed Software" shall mean Software which is licensed pursuant to this Contract. "Order Document" shall mean any official Purchaser document and attachments thereto specifying the Software to be purchased from the CIS under this Contract. "Purchaser Contract Administrator" shall mean that person designated by the City of Kent to administer this Contract on behalf of the City of Kent as further defined in the section titled Purchaser Contract Administrator. "Purchaser Contracting Officer" shall mean the City of Kent or the person to whom signature authority has been delegated in writing. This term includes, except as otherwise provided in this Contract, an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer acting within the limits of his/her authority. "RCW" shall mean the Revised Code of Washington (Washington State Law). "Related Services" shall mean those Services provided under this Contract and related to the Software license being acquired, that are appropriate to the scope of this Contract and includes such things as installation Services, maintenance, training, etc. "Software" shall mean the object code version of computer programs and any related documentation, excluding maintenance diagnostics. Software also means the source code version, where provided by CIS. 2 Contract Term 2. License Grant 2.1.CIS grants to Purchaser a non-exclusive license to use the Software and related documentation according to the terms and conditions of this Contract. 2.2.Purchaser will not de-compile or disassemble any Software provided under this Contract or modify Software which bears a copyright notice of any third party. 2.3.Purchaser may copy each item of Software to a single hard drive 2.4. Purchaser will make and maintain no more than one archival copy of each item of Software, and each copy will contain all legends and notices and will be subject to the same conditions and restrictions as the original. Purchaser may also make copies of the Software in the course of routine backups of hard drive(s) for the purpose of recovery of hard drive contents. 2.5.Purchaser may move Software from one device to another provided such Software is completely removed from the first device after a reasonable testing period on the new device. 3. Term 3.1. Initial Term. The initial term for Maintenance and Support Services for Software licensed herein shall be for six (6) months - January 1, 1999 through June 30, 1999. 3.2.Subseguent Terms. The term of said Maintenance and Support Services shall automatically extend for one (1) additional year and thereafter may be extended for additional one (1) year periods: PROVIDED, any extension shall be at the option of CIS and shall be effected by the Purchaser giving written notice requesting the extension to the CIS not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the then current Contract term. Each maintenance term shall be governed by the terms and conditions established herein. No change in terms and conditions shall be permitted during these extensions unless specifically set forth in this Contract or mutually agreed by all parties. 4. Survivorship All transactions executed pursuant to the authority of this Contract shall be bound by all of the terms, conditions, price discounts and rates set forth herein, notwithstanding the expiration of the initial term of this Contract or any extension thereof. Further, the terms, conditions, and warranties contained in this Contract that by their sense and context are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of this Contract shall so survive. In addition, the terms of the sections titled Disputes, Limitation of Liability, Patent and 3 Copyright Indemnification, and Protection of Purchaser's Confidential ,Information shall survive the termination of this Contract. Pricing, Taxes, Invoice and Payment 5. Pricing The CIS agrees to provide the Software, Maintenance and other Services at the costs, rates, and fees set forth in Schedule A to this Contract. 6. Taxes The Purchaser will pay sales and use taxes imposed on the Software or Related Services acquired hereunder. 7. Invoice & Payment 7.1.The CIS will submit properly itemized invoices and/or vouchers to the Purchaser. 7.2.Such payments shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of invoice. 7.3.This Contract number [XXX-XXX-XXX] must appear on all invoices, bills of lading, packages, and correspondence relating to this Contract. 7.4. If the Purchaser fails to make timely payment, CIS may invoice the Purchaser one percent (1%) per month on the amount overdue or a minimum of$1.00. CIS Responsibilities 8. Software Ownership CIS shall maintain all title, copyright, and other proprietary rights in the Software. Purchaser does not acquire any rights, express or implied, in the Software, other than those specified in this Contract. CIS, as Licensor, hereby warrants and represents to Purchaser as licensee that CIS is the owner of the Software licensed hereunder or otherwise has the right to grant to Purchaser the licensed rights to the Software provided by CIS through this Contract without violating any rights of any third party. 9. Installation of Software All installation of the Licensed Software purchased pursuant to this Contract for use by Purchaser will be by, and at the sole expense of Purchaser. Purchaser will complete installation of any software releases from CIS on specified schedule, 4 within two weeks of receipt. Failure to complete installation within specified time will result in no support from CIS for modules/programs on the release. 10.Software Upgrades and Enhancements CIS shall make reasonable efforts: 10.1. To supply updated versions of the Software to operate on upgraded versions of operating systems. However, in the future CIS may decide, at its sole discretion, that it is nct practical to go to new versions of an operating system. The CIS will notify Purchaser in writing if the CIS has made this determination. 10.2. To supply updated versions of the Software which encompass improvements, extensions, or other changes which CIS, at its discretion, deems to be logical improvements or extensions of the original products supplied to the Purchaser; and 10.3. To supply interface modules which are developed by the CIS for interfacing the Software to other Software products that are supported by CIS and licensed and used by Purchaser. 11.Software Maintenance and Support Services CIS shall provide a replacement copy or correction service to the Purchaser for any error, malfunction, or defect, if any, in the CIS-supplied Software which, when used as delivered, fails to perform in accordance with CIS's officially announced technical specifications and which the Purchaser shall bring to CIS's attention, unless programs or modules are specifically excluded within this contract or another written agreement made and entered into between CIS and Purchaser. CIS shall undertake such correction service as set forth below and shall use its reasonable efforts to make corrections in a manner, which is mutually beneficial. CIS shall disclose all known defects and their detours or workarounds to the Purchaser. In addition, CIS shall provide the following Services: 11.1. Telephone Support. CIS will provide telephone access to its Customer Support Desk during the hours of 8:00am to 4:30pm PDT or PST during business days (Monday through Friday, state holidays excluded) without restriction on the frequency of use from designated representatives of Purchaser. The Purchaser may identify two technical representatives and one representative per module as designates permitted to access the Customer Support desk. The CIS telephone support shall include; 11.1.1. Assistance related to questions on the use of the subject Software; 5 11.1.2. Assistance in identifying and determining the causes of suspected errors or malfunctions in Software; 11.1.3. Advice on detours or workarounds for identified errors or malfunctions, where reasonably available; 11.1.4. Information on errors previously identified by Purchaser and reported to CIS and detours to these where available. 11.2. On-line Support. CIS may execute on-line diagnostics from a remote CIS location to assist in the identification and isolation of suspected Software errors or malfunctions. 11.3. Error and Malfunction Service: If the Purchaser notifies CIS that it suspects an error or malfunction in the software, CIS will use its best efforts to confirm the existence of such error or malfunction. If no error or malfunction is found to exist, the Purchaser will pay CIS, at its usual rates, for time expended. If an error or malfunction exists, CIS will resolve in one of the two following manners: 11.3.1. Provide Purchaser with detour or work around to the software error or malfunction. Where code correction is required, the code correction will be included on the next scheduled maintenance release. 11.3.2. Where only a code correction is available, CIS will make a reasonable effort to download corrected code to Purchaser's HP3000 processor within two business days. 11.3.3. In order for CIS to provide this service, the Purchaser must provide: 11.3.3.1 Dial-up access capability to the HP3000 system upon which the software provided by CIS resides, in order to permit on-line observation and diagnosis of problems and download of code corrections when required. 11.3.3.2 Access to the software on the Purchaser's HP3000. 11.3.3.3 Rules and procedures by which CIS is to abide for such access and provide access at reasonable times to diagnose and correct error or malfunction. 12.Software Documentation In conjunction with each maintenance release, CIS will provide documentation describing any changes, corrections and enhancements contained on the release. The documentation will be in memo form with appropriate attachments. 6 13.Commitments, Warranties, and Representations 13.1. Any written commitment by either party within the scope of this Contract shall be binding. Failure of either party to fulfill such a commitment may constitute breach. 13.2. For purposes of this Contract, a commitment by either parry, which must be in writing, includes: 13.2.1. Prices, discounts, and options committed to remain in force over a specified period of time; 13.2.2. Any warranty or representation made by either party in a proposal as to Software performance or any other physical, design or functional characteristics of a machine, Software package, system, training, Services, or other products within the scope of this Contract; 13.2.3. Any warranty or representation made concerning the characteristics or items above, contained in any literature, descriptions, drawings or specifications accompanying or referred to in a proposal; 13.2.4. Any modification of or affirmation or representation as to the above which is made in writing during the course of negotiation whether or not incorporated into a formal amendment to the proposal in question; and 13.2.5. Any representation in a proposal, supporting documents or negotiations subsequent thereto as to training to be provided, Services to be performed, prices and options committed to remain in force over a fixed period of time or any other similar matter regardless of the fact that the duration of such commitment may exceed the duration of this Contract. 14.Physical Media Warranty 14.1. CIS warrants to Purchaser that each licensed copy of the Licensed Software provided by CIS is and will be free from physical defects in the media that tangibly embodies the copy (the "Physical Media Warranty"). The Physical Media Warranty does not apply to defects discovered more than Thirty (30), calendar days after the date of Acceptance of the Software copy by the Purchaser. 14.2. The Physical Media Warranty does not apply to defects arising from acts of Purchaser after the media has left CIS's control. 14.3. Purchaser shall be entitled to replacement by CIS, including shipping and handling costs, of any Software copy provided by CIS that does not comply with this warranty. 7 15.Protection of CIS Confidential Information 15.1. Purchaser acknowledges that some of the material and information which may come into its possession or knowledge in connection with this Contract or its performance, may consist of confidential data, the disclosure of which to, or use by, third parties could be damaging. Therefore, access to information concerning individual recipients of the state's services or individual clients, among other items, shall not be granted except as authorized by law or Agency rule. Purchaser agrees to hold all such information in strictest confidence, not to make use thereof for other than the performance of this Contract, to release it only to authorized employees or Subcontractors requiring such information, and not to release or disclose it to any other party. Purchaser agrees to release such information or material only to Subcontractors who have signed a written agreement expressly prohibiting disclosure. Purchaser further agrees to, at its discretion, either destroy or return all such information at the end of the term of this Contract. 15.2. This section does not impose any obligation on the Purchaser if the information is: (1) publicly known at the time of disclosure; (2) already known to the receiving party at the time it is furnished to the Purchaser; (3) furnished by the CIS to others without restrictions on its use or disclosure; or (4) independently developed by the receiving party without use of the proprietary information. 16.Subpoena In the event that a subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party in any way concerning the Software or Related Services provided pursuant to this Contract is served upon CIS or Purchaser, such party agrees to notify the other party in the most expeditious fashion possible following receipt of such subpoena or other legal process. CIS and Purchaser further agree to cooperate with the other party in any lawful effort by the other party to contest the legal validity of such subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party. Contract Termination 17.Termination for Default 17.1. If either the Purchaser or the CIS violates any material term or condition of this Contract or fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Contract, then the aggrieved party shall give the other party written notice of such failure or violation. The responsible party will correct the violation or failure within thirty (30) calendar days or as otherwise mutually agreed. If the failure or violation is not corrected, this Contract may be terminated immediately by written notice from the aggrieved party to the other party. 8 17.2. If it is determined for any reason the failure to perform is without the defaulting party's control, fault, or negligence, the termination shall be deemed to be a Termination for Convenience. 17.3. This section shall not apply to any failure(s) to perform that result from the willful or negligent acts or omissions of the aggrieved party. 18.Termination for Convenience 18.1. When it is in the best interest of either party Q4, the CIS Contract Administrator may terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, by thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the Purchaser. Invocation of the Termination for Withdrawal of Authority or Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds sections shall be deemed a termination for convenience but will not require such thirty (30) calendar days. 19.Termination for Withdrawal of Authority In the event that the authority of CIS to perform any of its duties is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the commencement of this Contract and prior to normal completion, CIS may terminate this Contract under the Termination for Convenience section. 20.Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds If funds are not allocated to continue this Contract in any future period, CIS will not be obligated to provide any further Services. The Purchaser agrees to notify the CIS of such non-allocation at the earliest possible time. No penalty shall accrue to the Purchaser in the event this section shall be exercised. 21.Covenant against Contingent Fees 21.1. The Purchaser warrants that no person or selling Agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon any agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, except bona fide employees or a bona fide established commercial or selling Agency of the Purchaser. 21.2. In the event of breach of this section by the Purchaser, the CIS shall have the right to annul this Contract without liability to the CIS. s Disputes and Remedies 22.Disputes Both parties agree to exercise good faith in dispute resolution. 22.1. In the event a bona fide dispute concerning a question of fact arises between the CIS and the Purchaser and it cannot be resolved between the parties with the aid of the CIS Contract Administrator, either party may initiate the dispute resolution procedure provided herein. 22.2. Time is of the essence in resolving disputes. The initiating party shall reduce its description of the dispute to writing and deliver it to the responding party. The responding party shall respond in writing within three (3) Business Days. 22.2.1. Then, both parties shall have three (3) Business Days to negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved after the three (3) Business Days, a dispute resolution panel may be requested in writing by either party who shall also identify the first panel member. 22.2.2. Within three (3) Business Days of receipt of the initiating party's request, the responding party will designate a panel member. Those two panel members will appoint a third individual to the dispute resolution panel within the next three (3) Business Days. 22.2.3. The dispute resolution panel will review the written descriptions of the dispute, gather additional information as needed, and render a decision on the dispute in the shortest practical time. 22.2.4. Each party shall bear the cost for its panel member and share equally the cost of the third panel member. 22.3. Both parties agree to be bound by the determination of the dispute resolution panel. 22.4. Both parties agree to exercise good faith in dispute resolution and to settle disputes prior to using a dispute resolution panel whenever possible. 22.5. The Purchaser and the CIS agree that, the existence of a dispute notwithstanding, they will continue without delay to cant' out all their respective responsibilities under this Contract which are not affected by the dispute. 10 22.6. If the subject of the dispute is the amount due and payable by Purchaser for maintenance Services being provided by CIS, CIS shall continue providing maintenance pending resolution of the dispute provided Purchaser pays CIS the amount Purchaser, in good faith, believes is due and payable, and places in escrow the difference between such amount and the amount CIS, in good faith, believes is due and payable. 23.Non-Exclusive Remedies The remedies provided for in this Contract shall not be exclusive but are in addition to all other remedies available under law. 24.Failure to Perform If either party fails to perform any substantial obligation under this Contract, the other party shall give written notice of such failure to perform. If after thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the written notice either party still has not performed, then the matter will be resolved by the Dispute Resolution Process. 25.Limitation of Liability 25.1. The parties agree that neither the CIS nor the Purchaser shall be liable to each other, regardless of the form of action, for consequential, incidental, indirect, or special damages except for a claim or demand based on patent or copyright infringement, in which case liability shall be as set forth elsewhere in this Contract. This section does not modify any sections regarding liquidated damages, retainages, or any other such conditions as are elsewhere agreed to herein between the parties. The damages specified in the sections titled Termination for Default and Review of CIS's Records are not consequential, incidental, indirect, or special damages as that term is used in this section. 25.2. Neither the CIS nor the Purchaser shall be liable for damages arising from causes beyond the reasonable control and without the fault or negligence of either the CIS or the Purchaser. Such causes may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of a governmental body other than Purchaser acting in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, war, explosions, fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather; but in every case the delays must be beyond the reasonable control and without fault or negligence of the CIS, the Purchaser, or their respective Subcontractors. 11 Contract Administration 26.Notices Any notice or demand or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Contract or applicable law (except notice of malfunctioning Software) shall be effective if and only if it is in writing, properly addressed, and either delivered in person, or by a recognized courier service, or deposited with the United States Postal Service as first-class certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses: to CIS at: Center for Information Services Attention: Contract Administrator 3101 Northup Way Bellevue, Washington, 98004-1449 Phone: 425-803-9700 - Fax: 425-803-9650 to Purchaser at: City of Kent Attention: Contract Administrator 220 45h Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5985 Notwithstanding RCW 1.12.070, such communications shall be effective upon receipt. The notice address as provided herein may be changed by written notice given as provided above. 27.Section Headings, Incorporated Documents, and Order of Precedence 27.1. The headings used herein are inserted for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the sections. 27.2. Each of the documents listed below is, by this reference, incorporated into this Contract as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency in this Contract, the inconsistency shall be resolved in the following order of precedence: 27.2.1. Applicable federal and state statutes, laws, and regulations; 27.2.2. Sections of this Contract [Contract Number]; 31.2.3. Schedule A - Authorized Product and Price List, to this Contract; 12 28.Entire Agreement This Contract sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and except as provided in the section titled Commitments, Warranties, and Representations, understandings, agreements, representations, or warranties not contained in this Contract or a written amendment hereto shall not be binding on either party. Except as provided herein, no alteration of any of the terms, conditions, delivery, price, quality, or Specifications of this Contract will be effective without the written consent of both parties. 29. Additional Services and Software Purchaser and CIS agree that additional Services and/or Software, which are appropriate to the scope of this Contract, may be added to this Contract (Schedule A hereto) by an instrument in writing, with the mutual consent of both parties. Such writing shall include a specific description of the additional Services and/or Software, pricing and additional terms and conditions as relevant. The additional Services and/or Software shall be available under the same terms and conditions established herein, unless otherwise agreed to in a signed writing. 30. Authority for Modifications and Amendments No modification, amendment, alteration, addition, or waiver of any section or condition of this Contract shall be effective or binding unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the CIS and the Purchaser. Only the CIS Contract Administrator or delegate by writing shall have the express, implied, or apparent authority to alter, amend, modify, add, or waive any section or condition of this Contract on behalf of the CIS. 31. CIS Contract Administrator The CIS shall appoint a Contract Administrator for this Contract who will provide oversight of the activities conducted hereunder. The CIS Contract Administrator will manage this Contract on behalf of the CIS and will be the principal point of contact for the Purchaser. 32. Purchaser Contract Administrator The Purchaser shall appoint a Contract Administrator for this contract. 13 33. Independent Status The parties hereto, in the performance of this Contract, will be acting in their individual, corporate or governmental capacities and not as agents, employees, partners, joint ventures, or associates of one another. The employees or agents of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the other party for any purpose whatsoever, nor will the Purchaser make any claim of right, privilege or benefit which would accrue to an employee under chapter 41 .06 RCW, chapter 23B.16 RCW, or Title 51 RCW. 34. Governing Law This Contract shall be governed in all respects by the law and statutes of the state of Washington. The jurisdiction for any action hereunder shall be the Superior Court for the state of Washington. The venue of any action hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County, Washington. 35.Assignment 35.1. With the prior written consent of the CIS, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, the Purchaser may assign this Contract PROVIDED, That such assignment shall not operate to relieve the Purchaser of any of its duties and obligations hereunder, nor shall such assignment affect any remedies available to the CIS that may arise from any breach of the sections of this Contract, its supplements, or warranties made herein including but not limited to, rights of setoff. 36.Publicity The Purchaser agrees to submit to the CIS all advertising, sales promotion, and other publicity matters relating to this Contract or any Product fumished by the Purchaser wherein the CIS's name is mentioned or language used from which the connection of the CIS's name therewith may, in CIS's judgment, be inferred or implied. The Purchaser further agrees not to publish or use such advertising, sales promotion, or publicity matter without the prior written consent of the CIS. 14 General 37.Save Harmless Purchaser shall protect, indemnify and save the CIS harmless from and against any damage, cost, or liability, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from such claim, by third parties for any or all injuries to persons or damage to property arising from intentional, willful or negligent acts or omissions of Purchaser, its officers, employees, agents, or Subcontractors. 38.Compliance with Civil Rights Laws During the performance of this Contract, the Purchaser shall comply with all federal and applicable state nondiscrimination laws. 39.Severability If any term or condition of this Contract or the application thereof to any person(s) or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition, or application; to this end the terms and conditions of this Contract are declared severable. 40.Waiver Waiver of any breach of any term or condition of this Contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this Contract shall be held to be waived, modified or deleted except by a written instrument signed by the parties hereto. 41.Treatment of Assets 41.1. Title to all property fumished by the CIS shall remain in the CIS. 41.2. Any property of the CIS fumished to the Purchaser shall, unless otherwise provided herein or approved by the CIS, be used only for the performance of this Contract. 41.3. Upon loss, or destruction of, or damage to any CIS property, the Purchaser shall notify the CIS thereof and shall take all reasonable steps to protect that property from further damage. 41.4. The Purchaser shall surrender to the CIS all property of the CIS prior to settlement upon completion, termination, or cancellation of this Contract. 15 41.5. All reference to the Purchaser under this section shall also include Purchaser's employees, agents, or Subcontractors. Contract Execution 42.Authority to Bind The signatories to this Contract represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Contract. 43.Counterparts This Contract may be executed in counterparts or in duplicate originals. Each counterpart or each duplicate shall be deemed an original copy of this Contract signed by each party, for all purposes. 16 In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto, having read this Contract in its entirety, including all attachments, do agree in each and every particular and have thus set their hands hereunto. Approved Approved City of Kent Center for Information Services Signature Signature Pnnt or Type Name Print or Type Narne Title Date Title Date Approved as to Form State of Washington, Office of the Attorney General Signature Print or Type Name Assistant Attorney General Title Date 17 Schedule A Authorized Product and Price List Schedule A Authorized Product and Price List Contract No. [XXX-XXX-XXX] Between the City of Kent and Center for Information Services CIS is authorized to sell maintenance and support services for products identified in this Schedule A at the prices set forth in this Schedule A under the above referenced contract. This Schedule may only be modified in writing by the Purchaser Contract Administrator or by CIS Contract Administrator at time Purchaser requests a contract extension. Applications: Financial Management System (FMS) - Maintenance and Support fees: $23,000/year or $1,916.67/month for 11 months and $1916.63 for 12th month. Production Management System (PMS)- Maintenance and Support fees: $2,000/year or $166.67/month for 11 months and $166.64 for 12th month. Payroll/Personnel Management System (PPMS) - Maintenance and support fees: $27,000/year or $2,250/month. Maintenance and Support Includes: • Access to CIS Customer Support Desk from 8:00am to 4:30pm PDT or PST Monday through Friday - excluding state holidays. • Updates, enhancements made to applications; • Implementation installation tape once per calendar quarter, per schedule issued by CIS; • Emergency implementations via dial-up, download when warranted, to fix an urgent problem. • Via Customer Support Desk, replies to how to use questions, assistance in researching and solving problems and replies to installation questions; A- 1 • Documentation, in memo form with appropriate related attachments for any changes, corrections and/or enhancements included on the quarterly implementations. Requested Changes or Enhancements: Any requested changes or enhancements made, in writing, to CIS will be on a staff available and charge basis. The hourly rate is $90.00 and subject to change if the contract is extended beyond the first six (6) month period. The procedure or sequence of events for such requests is: 1 . Requests for changes or enhancements are to be in writing and sent to the CIS Contract Administrator. Such requests will include detailed description of change or enhancement and, when appropriate, copy of screen or report with modifications highlighted and described. Requests will also include name, address, phone number, Fax number, and if available, e-mail address of Primary Contact. If different, same information for invoicing. 2. CIS will prepare an estimate of time and cost to make requested change and will contact the identified Primary Contact if clarification is needed. Estimate will be sent to Primary Contact via FAX, US Postal Service or e-mail. 3. Customer notification will be sent to CIS Contract Administrator, noting whether to proceed or not and approval for payment upon completion. 4. If determination is made not to proceed, CIS will invoice for effort spent completing the estimate. 5. If determination is made to proceed, CIS will notify Primary Contact of estimated completion date. This date will be an estimate only and not binding, since based on staff availability. 6. Upon completion of requested modification, the modification will be included on the next scheduled implementation. If requested and modification allows to be completed via dial-up and download, this will be completed by CIS at an additional charge of$250.00. Year 2000 Changes to Unique Processes: CIS has delivered the Year 2000 (Y2K) modifications for those programs/processes within FMS and PPMS that are unique to the Purchaser on a cost basis. These modifications have been delivered to Purchaser in an untested state. The Purchaser has agreed to make good faith effort to test modifications by June 30, 1999. The Purchaser will not hold CIS responsible for problems related to these Y2K modifications. CIS will correct any errors or omissions at no additional charge to Purchaser, if tested and problems are reported prior to June 30, 1999. The rates for making the Y2K modifications are $90.00/hour. The Unique Programs are included on "Schedule A, Attachment 1". A-2 CIS will use reasonable efforts to assist the Purchaser to achieve the following year 1999 and 2000 compliance goals: 1. Software and applications will not abnormally end or provide invalid or incorrect results as a result of date data, especially between centuries. 2. No valid value for current date will cause interruptions in desired operations. 3. All manipulations of time-related data (dates, duration, days of the week, etc.) will produce the desired results for all valid date values. Date elements in interfaces and data storage will permit specifying century to eliminate date ambiguity. 4. For any date element represented without century, the correct century is unambiguous for all manipulations involving that element. CIS will provide good faith efforts to provide technical assistance to the Purchaser for the purposes of testing the Purchaser's Customized Product's for Year 2000 compliance. This special technical support will be provided at the rate indicated in this Schedule. The Purchaser, with CIS's assistance, shall be responsible for performing Year 2000 compliance testing for the Customized Products on the Purchaser's owned or leased machines. CIS will make good faith efforts to work with the Purchaser to determine that the Purchasers Year 2000 compliance testing of the Customized Products is complete. The Purchaser will compensate CIS at the rate established in this Schedule for assistance in setting up a test environment on the Purchaser's machines. CIS will not be responsible for Year 2000-related problems with the Purchaser's customized products. Source Code Escrow. CIS agrees to place current copies of its source code in an escrow account mutually agreed upon by Purchaser. CIS will notify the Purchaser, on or before the effective date of this agreement, of the name and address of its escrow agent, and will also notify the escrow agent of its obligations to the Purchaser that are set forth in this agreement. CIS will update these copies within forty-five (45) calendar days of each major product release, which is estimated to occur once or twice each year, and CIS will provide the Purchaser with written proof of filing these updates in the escrow account within fourteen (14) calendar days of CIS's filing of the update. Source code for those CIS modules will be made available to the Purchaser under the occurrence of any one of the following conditions: (a) CIS defaults on any of the terms of its contract with the Purchaser; (b) CIS ceases to do business as a public entity; (c) CIS stops maintenance support of the software modules in question; (d) CIS fails to perform the contract in a timely fashion; A-3 (e) CIS fails to maintain technical staff capable of supporting or modifying the software system. Within thirty (30) calendar days from the effective date of this agreement, CIS will require its escrow agent to provide the Purchaser acceptable written assurance that, in the event of the occurrence of any of the conditions listed in Section 14.1 or upon the direct request from CIS, the Purchaser shall have the unconditional right to immediately obtain and use its copies of the source code programs and technical documentation. A-4 Schedule A Attachment 1 PPMS Kent Unique Programs PIRG-ID COMP-PRG TITLE PSC100 Daily time Screen PSC101 Employee Payroll Time Report PSC102 Time Transaction Update PSC103 Payroll Consolidation (Ps1110) PSC104 Automatic Payment Generation (Ps1203) PSC106 Longevity Pay Raise Update PSC107 Compensatory Time Payoff PSC109 Compensatory Time Payoff PSC110 Cost Distribution Screen PSC111 Build Payr-Schd-M Table for PSC110 PSC112 Sum Cost Distribution for PSC110 PSC113 Cost Distribution Leave Utilizat'N PSC114 Cost Distr. Time-Trns-D Creation PSC115 Alternative Date Entry Subroutine PSC116 Cost Distribution Leave Transaction PSC120 Update Cost Distribution Hourly Rates PSC121 Cost Distribution Job Dept. Summary PSC122 Cost Distribution Employee Summary PSC125 Generate Fms Cost Distribution PSC130 Flsa Reporting for Daily Time PSC131 Premium Pay Increase PSC132 Flsa Report for Cost Distribution PSC133 Retirement Hours Comparison Report PSC134 Purge Cost Distribution PSC135 Purge Daily Time PSC136 Retirement Hours Reconciliation A- 5 Schedule A Attachment 1 PPMS Kent Unique Programs continued PRG-ID COMP-PRG TITLE PSC137 Payroll Continuity Reconciliation PSC138 Calendar Code Generator PSC140 Kent Leave Accrual Process PSC141 Kent Periodic Increment Update PSC142 Kent Auto Pay Raise Update PSC150 Leave Posting Routine PSC151 Work Period Table PSC152 Task Table PSC153 Equipment Table PSC154 Cost Distribution Table PSC155 Department Account Table PSC156 Applied Cost Table PSC157 Employee Group Table PSC160 Retirement Hours Recon And Update PSC165 Kent Leave Adj. Real/Budgeted FMS Kent Unique Programs PRG-ID COMP-PRG TITLE BAC100 Scheduled of Revenue/Expenditures BAC101 Blue Board Report BAC102 Extract Blue Border BAC103 BA1290 - Budget Status Extract BAC106 Kent Project Budget Update Process GAC105 GA1337 - Subledger Report GAC106 Council AP Checks A- 6 Schedule A Attachment 1 FMS Kent Unique Programs continue PRG-ID COMP-PRG TITLE GAC107 Check Register by Vendor Name GAC108 Departmental Check Report GAC109 Monthly General Ledger Report GAC110 On-Line GL Archival Inquire Screen GAC111 On-Line GL Archival Print Routine GAC112 On-Line GL Archival Load ZXC100 ZX1901 C - Build Acct Per TTL ZXC101 Unique Update to FMS Extracts A-7 ........... ........... Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: WIDE AREA NETWORK EQUIPMENT PURCHASE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with Cisco Systems for the purchase of network hardware for wide area networking, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS: Cover memo, letter from Mayor, contract, and DIS bid 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $63, 500 . 2-7 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Technology Plan 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G Date: November 24, 1998 - To: Council Operations Committee From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Servicesf^� (� Prepared By: Joseph Lorenz, Network Manager Re: Wide Area Network— Equipment Purchase Background: As part of the Technology Plan the need to purchase network hardware to connect remote facilities to the network was clearly identified. Connecting remote facilities to the City's network is necessary so that departments can share files electronically, utilize PC-based electronic mail, and utilize new business systems. Current Situation: With the City's new ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) backbone in place and operating reliably we are preparing to deploy network access to the remaining City facilities. Network access will be provided to Fire Stations, Parks Facilities, and to the Corrections facility. This particular equipment is modular in design so that facilities can be added to the network in the short term via T1 lines purchased from U.S. West. When fiber connectivity becomes available from TCI a few components will be replaced so that the fiber can be "plugged in" to the network. Purchase Recommendation: Information Services staffed worked with our consultants from the Moss Bay group to develop a hardware configuration for this project. Cisco systems was identified as the desired hardware platform. Installation will be undertaken by a separate company and will cost less than $10,000. The City has identified an existing Washington State, Department of Information Services (DIS) bid that allows the state and other agencies to purchase networking hardware from CISCO Systems at a discount of approximately twenty percent (22%). By utilizing an existing bid to purchase this equipment the City saves the costs and associated time delays of issuing, evaluating, and awarding complex bids of this nature. Under the City's procurement code, bids conducted by other agencies for substantially the same purchase constitutes compliance with the advertised bid requirements. (See Sec 3.70.030.) The Mayor has concurred with staff recommendation and has authorized waiving the advertising bid requirements pursuant to section 3.70.080 of the City's procurement code. Attachments: Letter to Mayor, CISCO Bid, DIS Bid Motion: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Cisco Systems for the purchase of network hardware for wide are networking, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. Memorandum To: Mayor Jim White From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Services Prepared By: Joseph Lorenz, Network Manager Date: November 20, 1998 RE: Wide Area Networking: Recommendation to purchase from State bid. Background: As part of the 1998 —2000 Technology Plan network hardware for remote City facilities was a key component necessary for providing network access. Providing these locations with access to the City's network will allow departments the ability to share files electronically, have PC based e-mail and is a necessary step to use new business systems being purchased and scheduled for implementation. Technology Recommendations: Information Services has worked with our consultants from the Moss Bay Group to develop a hardware configuration for this project. Cisco Systems was clearly identified as the technical leader and is the most --ommended provider of router hardware for this type of project. Through our research, an existing Washington State, Department of Information Services (DIS) bid for products from Cisco Systems was identified. The bid allows for Washington State and other agencies to purchase Cisco equipment at a twenty percent (20%) discount. The purchase of this equipment utilizing this bid also saves the costs and time delays of issuing, evaluating, and awarding complex bids of this nature. Information Services staff has researched the matter and determined that going out to bid is not recommendable in this situation. Under the City's procurement code, Sec. 3.70.030 bids conducted by other public agencies for substantially the same purchase constitutes compliance with the advertised bid requirements. Because of this, the Information Services staff is requiring a waiver pursuant to Sec. 3.70.080 of the City's procurement code. pr ved: Jim White Date Mayor Cisco Systems Cisco Sr:7E08 500108ut Avenue NE Bellevue WA 96004 Ph: 425-488-0862 Fax 425-488-0899 • Price Quotation Deer 11/11/m Quote Number: 401-VG1 To: Joseph Rahiff Total Prim: ,471.40 Moss Bay Group 5525 Lakevlmw Drive,Subs 200 IGrldand,WA 58003 USA Ph: Fax: Product Number Product Dssoription Oty Unit List Prim Dime% Extended Pr roe CIS001601 Cisco 1601 Ethemel/Sedal Modular Router 12 S895.00 22.00% S8,377.20 SF1606-11.3.4T Cisco I5W Senes IPIIPX 12 $800,00 22.00% $7,458.00 MFJM1600.2U40 Claw 1601-1604 2MB to 4MB DFW 12 S250.00 22.00% $2,340.00 Factory Upgrade WIC-IT 1-Port Serial WAN Interface Card 12 $400.00 22.00°/6 $3.744.00 CAB-V35UT V.35 Cable, DTE,Male, 10 Feet 12 $100.00 22.00% $936.00 CISCO2610 Ethernet Modular Flouter w/Cisco IOS IP 2 $1,995.00 22-00% $3,11220 Software SF268-11.3.4T Cisco 2600 Series IP/1PX/AT/DEC 2 $400.00 22.00% $824.00 WIC-IT 1-Port Serial WAN Iroerfar-�*t`,ar[i 2 $400.00 22.000/6 $624.00 CAB-V35MT V.35 Cable,DTE, Male, 10 Feet 2 S100.00 22.00% $156.00 Misc TRADE-IN (BAY AN routers for 1600) 1 $1,820.00 CISM7204 Cisco 7204,4-slot chassis, 1 AC Supply 1 $4,000.00 22.00% $3,120.00 SF728S-112.15P Cisco 7200 Series IOS DeeMopllBM Feature 1 $4,000.00 22.00% $3,120.00 Set C72MVO Cisco 7200 InpuirOutput Controller 1 $1,000.00 22.00% 9780.00 NPE-200 Cisco 7200 Network Processing Engine,4 1 $6.500.00 22.000% S6,070.00 MB SRAM PA-4E 4-Port Ethernet 10BmseT Port Adapter 1 $4.500.00 22.00% $3,510.00 PA-ST-V35 B-Port Serial. V.35 Port Adapter 2 $8,000.00 22.00% $12,480.00 FOB Point: Origin Psymord Terms: Net 30 81hIp Date: Inmtanstlon: Available un Request and Billable Oraos Valid Untll: 12/11/98 Warranty: 90 Days Notes: I Clem ems,Inc.-CarondeMM aid Papdamy The&chic•of Nerwodit NMvw a Page i of 2 Cisco sylums � NE BsIwM WA 98004 Ph: 425-485-ON2 FAX 425-488.0899 • Price Quotation Daft: 11/11M Qualm Nundw: 401-VG1 To: Joseph Fishiff Total Pries: _ 8,471.40 Moss:Bay Group 3525 Lakeview Drive,Stine 200 Iarldand,WA 98003 USA Ph: Fax: Product Number Product Daaeeiptlon City unit List Prks Disc% Extended Prlee CAB-OCT-V35-MT 8 Lead Octet Cabo and 8 Male V35 DTE 2 $750.00 22.W6 $1,170.00 Connectors FOB Point: Origin Payment Terms: Net 30 Snap acne: Irmtallat . Available on Hequest and Billabie Owota Valid Until. 12/11/98 Warranty: 90 Days Signed Notes: Kee KMbm Clew Syaiwas,Ind-C rrIldo nN1 and rr.Aiahry 7ha Sclenps 0/NrNroebrg NNwona Pace 2 of 2 Master Contract Number K97-MST-012 for Intranet Routers Between the Department of Information Services and Cisco Svstems, Inc. Effective Date: March 19, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definitions.................................................................................................................................................................2 - Contract Term 2. Term..........................................................................................................................................................................3 3. Survivorship...............................................................................................................................................................3 Pricing, Invoice and Payment 4. Pricing........................................................................................................................................................................3 5.Advance Payment Prohibited.....................................................................................................................................4 6.Taxes................................................................................................... ......................................................................4 7. Invoice and Payment..................................................................................................................................................4 Contractor's Responsibilities 8. Title..................................................................................................... ......................................................................5 9. Equipment Shipping and Delivery.............................................................................................................................5 10. Risk of Loss and Shipping.......................................................................................................................................5 11. Contractor Installation and Set-up...........................................................................................................................6 12.Acceptance Testing..................................................................................................................................................6 13. Equipment Compatibility, Specifications and Configurations.......... ......................................................................7 14. Training...................................................................................................................................................................8 15. Equipment Warranty................................................................................................................................................8 16. Maintenance.............................................................................................................................................................9 17. Documentation.........................................................................................................................................................9 18. Contractor Commitments, Warranties and Representations..................................................................................10 19. Year 2000 Compliance Warranty..........................................................................................................................10 Purchaser's Authority and Responsibilities 20.Purchaser Use of Master Contract.........................................................................................................................10 21. Software License Terms........................................................................................................................................10 22. Export Restrictions................................................................................................................................................11 23. Related Agreements...............................................................................................................................................I I Contract Termination 24. Termination for Default.........................................................................................................................................12 25. Termination for Convenience................................................................................................................................12 26. Termination for Withdrawal of Authority .............................................................................................................13 27. Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds.............................................................................................................13 28.Termination for Conflict of Interest.......................................................................................................................13 29. Termination Procedure..........................................................................................................................................13 Disputes and Remedies 30. Disputes.................................................................................................................................................................14 31.Attorneys'Fees and Costs......................................................................................................................................14 32.Non-Exclusive Remedies.......................................................................................................................................14 33. Liquidated Damages..............................................................................................................................................14 34. Failure to Perform..................................................................................................................................................15 35. Limitation of Liability...........................................................................................................................................15 State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services i Q:1Contmct\K97MST012.AGT Contract Administration 36.Notices...................................................................................................................................................................16 37. Entire Agreement...................................................................................................................................................16 38. Mandatory Provisions of RFP are Substantive Terms...........................................................................................16 39. Section Headings,Incorporated Documents and Order of Precedence..................................................................17 40.Additional Services and Equipment.......................................................................................................................17 41.Authority for Modifications and Amendments......................................................................................................17 42. Independent Status of Contractor...........................................................................................................................17 43. Governing Law......................................................................................................................................................17 44. Subcontractors.......................................................................................................................................................18 45. Assignment............................................................................................................................................................18 46.Publicity.................................................................................................................................................................18 47. Review of Contractor's Records...................................................... .....................................................................18 General 48. Purchase Use Limitation........................................................................................................................................19 49. Patent and Copyright Indemnification...................................................................................................................19 50. Save Harmless.......................................................................................................................................................20 51. Industrial Insurance Coverage...............................................................................................................................20 52. Insurance................................................................................................................................................................20 53. Licensing Standards...............................................................................................................................................21 54. OSHA/WISHA......................................................................................................................................................21 55. Compliance with Civil Rights Laws......................................................................................................................21 56. Severability............................................................................................................................................................21 57. Waiver...................................................................................................................................................................21 58.Treatment of Assets...............................................................................................................................................21 59. Contractor's Proprietary Information....................................................................................................................22 Activity Reporting and Administration Fee 60. DIS Master Contract Administration Fee and Collection......................................................................................22 61.Master Contract Activity Reporting.......................................................................................................................23 62.Failure to Remit Reports/Fees ...............................................................................................................................23 Contract Execution 63. Authority to Bind...................................................................................................................................................24 64. Counterparts...........................................................................................................................................................24 Schedules Schedule A:Authorized Equipment and Price List Schedule B: Authorized K-20 Purchasers Schedule C: MWBE Certification[if applicable] Schedule D: Problem Escalation Procedures Exhibits Exhibit A:DIS Intranet Routers Request for Proposal Exhibit B: Contractor's Proposal Note.Exhibits A and B are not attached but are available upon request from the DIS Contract Administrator State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services ii Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT State of Washington Department of Information Services P.O. Box 42445 512 - 12th Avenue SE Olympia, Washington 98504-2445 Master Contract Terms and Conditions for Intranet Routers Master Contract Number K97-MST-012 Parties This Master Contract is entered into by and between the state of Washington acting through the Department of Information Services,an agency of Washington State government(hereinafter"DIS"), and Cisco SY stenis. I ne.. licensed to conduct business in the state of Washington under UBl Number 001-1-10- 89,(hereinafter"Contractor") for the provisioning of Intranet Routers(hereinafter"Equipment")to the State. This Master Contract is the result of an open, competitive acquisition process whereby a Request for Proposal was issued. Recitals Whereas,the state of Washington,acting through the University of Washington on behalf of DIS, issued a Request for Proposal dated November 5. 1996. Exhibit A hereto, for the purpose of obtaining Intranet Routt!S; Whereas,Cisco Systems. Inc. submitted a timely Proposal, Exhibit B hereto,and was identified as the apparently successful vendor;and, Whereas,DIS has determined that entering into a Master Contract with Cisco Systems. Inc. will meet the needs of the Purchasers and will be in the State's best interest; Now therefore,DIS hereby awards to Contractor this Master Contract to furnish Iiuranct Routcr� and Related Services to Purchasers at the prices set forth on Schedule A in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Master Contract. This Master Contract is an Optional Use Contract that neither fmanciAly binds the State nor otherwise obligates the State to purchase any Equipment or services hereunder. Nor does this Master Contract prevent the State from purchasing the same or similar Equipment and services from other sources,provided that, all legal acquisition requirements are satisfied. This Master Contract is not for personal use. 1. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 1 Q:\Conttact\K97MST012.AGT Definitions "Acceptance Date"shall mean the date of DIS' written notification to Contractor of acceptance of a - Product or written waiver of acceptance testing of a Product. Products that have passed acceptance testing, or had acceptance testing waived are deemed accepted by Purchaser upon delivery. "Business Days and Hours"shall mean Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, except for holidays observed by the state of Washington. "Contractor"shall mean Cisco Systems,Inc., its employees and agents. "Contractor"also includes any fain, provider,organization,individual,or other entity performing services under this Master Contract. It shall also include any subcontractor retained by Contractor as permitted under the terms of this Master Contract. "DIS Contracting Officer"shall mean the person appointed,in writing,by DIS to approve this Master Contract as to binding effect and thereby execute it on behalf of the State. Except as otherwise provided in this Master Contract,this term includes an authorized representative of the Contracting Officer acting within the limits of his/her authority. "Equipment"shall mean the Intranet Routers. components and features thereof, and any other equipment properly added to this Master Contract, as set forth on Schedule A-Authorized Equipment and Price List. "K-20 Purchaser"shall mean DIS and the participating educational organizations listed in Schedule B. At the sole discretion of DIS,additional public organizations may be named as authorized K-20 Purchasers and added to the list accordingly by DIS by amendment. "Purchaser" shall mean any Washington State agency with properly delegated authority to purchase the Equipment and Related Services which are the subject of this Master Contract,or any political subdivision of the state of Washington or non-profit organization with the authority to purchase such Equipment or Related Services pursuant to a properly executed Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with DIS. "Purchaser"also includes K-20 Purchasers who have a properly executed Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with DIS. "Product"shall mean in the context of acceptance testing either: (i)a router chassis bearing a unique manufacturer part number and containing the specified components including,but not limited to,central processing unit,memory,power supplies,the current operating system version of the router operating system and any required additional software;or(ii) an interface card or an interface card/port adapter combination installed in a router to facilitate attachment to an external network environment. "Related Agreements"shall mean additional agreements between Purchaser and Contractor for software licensing, training,warranty,maintenance, installation,or configuration and engineering support directly related to Equipment acquisitions made pursuant to this Master Contract. "Related Services/Services"shall mean those services provided under this Master Contract and related to the Equipment being acquired,that are appropriate to the scope of this Master Contract and includes such things as configuration and engineering support, installation services,maintenance,warranty,training,etc. "Software"shall mean the object code version of computer programs and any related documentation, excluding maintenance diagnostics. "Specifications" shall mean the mandatory technical and other mandatory specifications set forth in the RFP, Exhibit A, and any additional specifications set forth in Contractor's Proposal,Exhibit B,collectively. "State"shall mean DIS,any division,section,office, unit or other entity of DIS,or any of the officers or other officials lawfully representing DIS. "State"may also include Purchaser. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 2 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contract Term 2. Term 2.1. Initial Term. The initial term of this Master Contract shall be three(3)years,commencing upon the date of its execution by both the parties. 2.2. Subsequent Terms. The term of this Master Contract may be extended for an additional three(3) years,provided that, the extensions shall be at the option of DIS and shall be effected by DIS giving written notice to the Contractor of DIS' intent to extend the Master Contract,such notice to be given not less than thirty(30)calendar days prior to expiration of the then current Contract term,with Contractor accepting the extension prior to expiration of the then current Contract term. No change in terms and conditions is permitted during these extensions unless specifically set forth in this Master Contract. 3. Survivorship All purchase transactions executed pursuant to this Master Contract shall be bound by the terms, conditions, price discounts and rates set forth herein, notwithstanding the expiration of the initial term of this Master Contract or any extension thereof All terms, conditions, and warranties contained in the Master Contract which are intended to survive the completion of the performance, cancellation or termination of the Master Contract, shall so survive. In particular, the terms of the sections titled Software License Terms, Export Restrictions, Related Agreements, Disputes, Limitation of Liability, Patent and Copyright Indemnification, shall survive the termination of this Master Contract. Pricing, Invoice and Payment 4. Pricing 4.1. The Contractor agrees to provide the Equipment and Related Services at the costs,rates, and fees set forth in the Authorized Equipment and Price List attached as Schedule A to this Master Contract. No other costs,rates, or fees shall be payable to the Contractor, except the DIS Master Contract Administration Fee. 4.2. Such costs,rates,and fees may not be increased during the initial term of this Master Contract. 4.3. If the Contractor reduces its list prices for any of the Equipment or Related Services during the term of this Master Contract,Purchaser shall have the immediate benefit of such lower prices and rates for new purchases. Contractor shall send notice to the DIS Contract Administrator with the reduced list prices within fifteen(15)calendar days of the reduction taking effect. 4.4. Contractor agrees all the prices,terms, warranties,and benefits provided in this Master Contract are comparable to or better than the terms presently being offered by Contractor to any other governmental entity purchasing the same quantity under similar terms and conditions. If Contractor shall,during the term of this Master Contract,enter into contracts with any other governmental entity providing greater benefits or more favorable terms than those provided by this Master Contract,Contractor shall be obligated to provide the same to Purchaser for subsequent purchases. 4.5. It is expected that the Equipment may be upgraded with more powerful or newer components to meet functional or technical requirements State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 3 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT 5. Advance Payment Prohibited No advance payment shall be made for the Equipment and Related Services furnished by Contractor pursuant to this Master Contract. 6. Taxes Purchaser will pay sales and use taxes imposed on the Equipment or Related Services. Contractor must pay all other taxes including,but not limited to,Washington Business and Occupation Tax, taxes based on Contractor's income, and personal property taxes levied or assessed on Contractor's personal property to which Purchaser does not hold title. 7. Invoice and Payment 7.1. Contractor will submit properly itemized invoices and/or vouchers to Purchaser. Invoices shall provide the following: a) Contractor's name and address and remittance address, if different; b) Purchaser's name and address and Purchase Order or Field Order number; c) This Master Contract number,K97-11V1ST-011; d) Description of Equipment, including quantity ordered,model and serial numbers; e) Date of delivery and/or date of installation and set up; f) Contractor's list price for each item; g) Applicable discounts; h) Maintenance or other Related Services charges; i) Net invoice price for each item; j) Total invoice price, excluding sales tax; k) DIS Master Contract Administration Fee, if applicable: 1) Sales or other applicable taxes; m) Shipping costs; n) Other applicable charges; o) Total invoice price; and, p) Payment terms including any available prompt payment discounts. 7.2. Payments shall be due within thirty(30)calendar days after the Acceptance Date for such Equipment or Services or thirty(30)calendar days after receipt of properly prepared invoices,whichever is later. 7.3. Incorrect or incomplete invoices will be returned by Purchaser to Contractor for correction and reissue. 7.4. This Master Contract number. K9?-\1ST-01_2. must appear on all invoices,bills of lading, packages,and correspondence relating to this Contract. Purchaser shall not honor drafts nor accept goods on a sight draft basis. 7.5. If Purchaser fails to make timely payment, Contractor may invoice Purchaser one percent(I%) per month on the amount overdue,or a minimum of S 1.00. Payment will not be considered late if a check or warrant is postmarked within thirty(30)calendar days of the Acceptance Date of the Equipment or receipt of Contractor's properly prepared invoice,whichever is later. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 4 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contractor's Responsibilities 8. Title On the Acceptance Date,Contractor shall convey to Purchaser good title to the Equipment,excluding licensed software, free and clear of all liens,pledges,mortgages,encumbrances,or other security interests. Transfer of title to the Equipment does not include transfer of title to Contractor's Software. 9. Equipment Shipping and Delivery 9.1. Shipping dates will be established by Contractor upon receipt of a purchase order from the Purchaser. Contractor will use commercially reasonable efforts to notify Purchaser of the actual scheduled shipping date within five(5)Business Days after receipt of the order. 9.2. Purchaser has the right to defer Equipment shipment for no more than thirty(30)days from the scheduled shipping date,provided written notice is received by Contractor at least fifteen(15) days before the originally scheduled shipping date. 9.3. Canceled orders, rescheduled deliveries or Equipment configuration changes made by Purchaser within ten(10)days of the original shipping date will be subject to(i) acceptance by Contractor, and(ii)a charge of fifteen percent(15%)of the total invoice amount. Contractor reserves the right to reschedule delivery in cases of configuration changes made within ten(10)days of scheduled shipment. 9.4. Contractor shall deliver the Equipment ordered pursuant to this Master Contract to Purchaser's location anywhere in the state of Washington within sixty(60)calendar days of a written order. For any exception to this delivery date, Contractor must notify Purchaser and obtain prior approval in writing. Time is of the essence with respect to delivery and Contractor may be subject to liquidated damages,or cancellation of the order, or termination of the Master Contract,or other damages available under law for failure to deliver on time. 9.5. All Equipment deliveries made pursuant to this Master Contract must be complete. Unless Contractor has obtained prior written approval from Purchaser,which shall not be unreasonably withheld, incomplete deliveries or backorders will not be accepted. All packages must be accompanied by a packing slip which identifies all items included with the shipment and Purchaser's Purchase Order number. For all deliveries. Contractor must have a delivery receipt signed by an authorized representative of Purchaser. 10. Risk of Loss and Shipping Contractor shall ship all Equipment purchased pursuant to this Master Contract, freight prepaid,FOB Purchaser's destination. The method of shipment shall be consistent with the nature of the Equipment and hazards of transportation. Regardless of FOB point,Contractor agrees to bear all risks of loss,damage,or destruction of the Equipment ordered hereunder which occurs prior to the Acceptance Date,except loss or damage attributable to Purchaser's fault or negligence or Purchaser's subcontractor's fault or negligence; and such loss, damage,or destruction shall not release Contractor from any obligation hereunder. After Acceptance,risk of loss or damage shall be bome by Purchaser,except loss or damage attributable to Contractor's fault or negligence. 11. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 5 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contractor Installation and Set-up 11.1. When requested by Purchaser,Contractor shall set up and install the Equipment within sixty(60) — calendar days of a written order. Failure to meet the installation date(s)may subject Contractor to liquidated damages,or cancellation of the order,or termination of the Master Contract,or other damages available under law,unless such failure is caused by acts or omissions of Purchaser. 11.2. Contractor must provide to Purchaser an Installation Support Plan which includes: a) Site preparation. b) Duration of Contractor setup and Contractor testing. c) Number of Purchaser personnel required during installation. d) Description of the procedures used to deem the system ready for acceptance testing. e) A detailed training plan involving on-site equipment administration and user training programs. f) A detailed resource allocation plan showing the number of Contractor personnel to be involved and the extent of Contractor commitment of these personnel to the project. 11.3. The Contractor must separately itemize all installation and environmental requirements for the Equipment as listed below. a) Air conditioning b) Electrical requirements c) Special grounding d) Cabling requirements e) Weight(floor loading) f) Space requirements g) Humidity and temperature limits h) Noise level 11.4. While on Purchaser's premises,Contractor, its agents,employees, or subcontractors shall conform in all respects with physical,fire,or other security regulations. 11.5. Contractor shall be responsible for any loss or damage to Purchaser's property which results from Contractor's willful misconduct or negligence or which results from Contractor's failure to maintain and administer that property in accordance with sound management practices. 12. Acceptance Testing 12.1. Prior to being generally available to Purchasers.Equipment to be sold pursuant to this Master Contract shall pass acceptance testing as set forth below. 12.2. Acceptance testing under this Master Contract will occur on a per Product basis. Such acceptance testing will be conducted on one Product sample for thirty(30)consecutive calendar days and may be conducted by DIS or its designee. 12.3. Acceptance will be based on ninety-nine point eight percent(99.8%)successful performance of the Product sample in accordance with its Specifications for the thirty(30)day period. During the acceptance testing period if the Product sample fails to perform to its Specifications,the acceptance testing period will restart. The Product sample will have up to ninety(90)days to successfully complete the thirty(30)day acceptance test. If the Product sample fails to meet the performance requirements, Contractor will remove the sample at no expense to DIS or its designee. 12.4. The DIS Contracting Officer will give written notice to Contractor within five(5)days after a Product has passed its acceptance testing. Upon such written notification, the Product shall be State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 6 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT available for general purchase under this Master Contract and shall be deemed accepted by Purchaser upon the delivery of the Product to the Purchaser. 12.5. For purposes of acceptance testing,"Product"is defined as either: a) a router chassis bearing a unique manufacturer part number and containing the specified components including,but not limited to, central processing unit,memory,power supplies, the current operating system version of the router operating system and any required additional software;or e b) an interface card or an interface card/port adapter combination installed in a router to facilitate attachment to an external network environment. A single acceptance test process may validate one chassis sample and one or more interface samples simultaneously. 12.6. The DIS Contracting Officer may waive acceptance testing of any Product at any time during the life of the Contract. Such waiver shall be in writing. 12.7. New Products to be added to this Contract are subject to these acceptance testing requirements. 12.8. Since Products may continue to be purchased over a period of three(3)or more years, DIS may determine at some future time during the term of the Contract that it is necessary to confirm a Product's continued compliance with the Specifications by successfully completing the acceptance testing set forth above. The DIS Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing of such determination and may require Contractor to discontinue its sales of the identified Product and suspend any orders therefor that have not already been shipped until the Product has passed its acceptance testing. 13. Equipment Compatibility, Specifications and Configurations 13.1. Contractor shall notify Purchaser of the existence of any compatibility issues between Contractor's Equipment and Purchaser's already existing or planned-for hardware, software, cabling,codecs, CSU/DSUs, inverse multiplexers,and terminal adapters. Purchaser will provide Contractor access in a timely fashion to necessary areas and equipment sites and shall provide Contractor with a list of existing or planned-for hardware,software,cabling,codecs,CSU/DSUs, inverse multiplexers,and terminal adapters,as necessary. 13.2. Each item of Equipment delivered pursuant to the Master Contract(s)will conform to its Specifications in all respects including but not limited to physical characteristics,operating characteristics,space requirements,power requirements,maintenance or warranty characteristics, modularity,compatibility, and the like, as may be modified in writing as agreed to by the parties. 13.3. For the purpose of delivery and performance under this Master Contract,the Equipment purchased hereunder shall be grouped together in one or more Equipment, firmware,and/or software configurations as set forth in Contractor's Proposal. Any such configuration shall be deemed incomplete and undeliverable if any item of Equipment within that configuration has not been delivered,or if delivered,not installed or operational in accordance with the Equipment Delivery and Contractor Installation and Set-up sections of this Contract. 13.4. If requested by Purchaser, Contractor agrees to identify on all items of Equipment supplied under this Master Contract,all appropriate test points for connecting commercially available equipment monitors designed to measure system capacity,performance, or activity. 13.5. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 7 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contractor shall not be responsible for equipment failures caused solely by any interconnections, except as provided under Contractor Commitments,Warranties,and Representations. 14. Training 14.1. When requested by Purchaser,Contractor shall provide training at its then current prices. Such training shall be designed by Purchaser and Contractor in a training plan that includes subject rtidltter,dates,classroom hours,place and number of students . 14.2. Contractor shall provide Purchaser with general equipment service,product information, and response to questions regarding specific Equipment use, including support for special events and international calling. 14.3. Contractor-provided training must satisfy any certification requirements of the Equipment manufacturer in the operation, administration or maintenance of the Equipment,whichever is applicable, so that those trainees are then so certified by the Equipment manufacturer. If required for Equipment warranty, instructors provided by Contractor shall be directly employed by the Equipment manufacturer. 15. Equipment Warranty Contractor warrants that the Equipment shall be in good operating condition and shall conform to the Specifications and other materials provided to Purchaser as set forth in the section titled Contractor Commitments,Representations, and Warranties,for a period of one(1)year, commencing upon the Acceptance Date. Contractor further warrants that the Equipment conforms to all mandatory requirements as set forth in Exhibit A and all representations contained in Contractor's Proposal.Unless otherwise requested by the Purchaser,the warranty provided by Contractor will be an on-site warranty for both parts and labor on the Equipment. 15.1. Contractor's on-site warranty includes Cisco's SMARTnetTM services(as described below in the provision titled Maintenance)plus next Business Day on-site coverage. Contractor shall adjust, repair or replace all Equipment that is defective or not performing in conformance with the Specifications within twenty-four(24)hours after notification from Purchaser. Contractor shall provide temporary loan equipment if repair cannot be completed within twenty-four(24)hours, and temporary components must be of the same type and configuration as the broken component. Contractor shall assume all costs for replacing parts or units and their installation, including transportation and delivery fees.When performing service, Contractor must not modify the hardware or software configuration beyond the failed component without first contacting the appropriate K-20 network operating entity Contractor must repair or replace any defective Equipment so it conforms to the Specifications. 15.2. Contractor shall provide its Technical Assistance Center(TAC)as Purchaser's point of contact to report Equipment failures and problems and to receive technical support services twenty-four(24) hours a day, seven(7)days a week,toll free at(800) 553-2447. Purchase can also e-mail to tac@cisco.com. 15.3. Contractor agrees that all warranty service provided hereunder shall be performed by manufacturer trained,certified, and authorized technicians. 15.4. Purchaser may choose to buy Contractor's extended warranty coverage at time of purchase at the price set forth in Schedule A. Purchaser may choose to forego Contractor's on-site warranty and to purchase only Cisco's SMARTnetTM services(as described below in the provision titled Maintenance)at the price set forth in Schedule A. 15.5. Purchaser agrees that Contractor will not be liable for damages caused by Purchaser's actions or failure of Purchaser to fulfill any of its responsibilities for site installation. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 8 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT 15.6. THE WARRANTIES IN THIS MASTER CONTRACT REPLACE ALL OTHER WARRANTIES,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 16. Maintenance Contractor shall make available to Purchaser the maintenance plans set forth below at the prices set forth in Schedule A. If Purchaser does not purchase a maintenance plan,Contractor will provide maintenance services on a time and materials basis at the prices set forth in Schedule A. 16.1. Option Plan 1 -Low Cost Maintenance-Cisco's SMARTnetTM services 16.1.1. Contractor will provide Purchaser with all new releases of manufacturer software updates for Purchaser's Equipment via Cisco Connection Online(CCO)or media,upon request. Contractor shall provide Purchaser with registered access to CCO twenty-four(24)hours a day, seven(7)days a week. 16.1.2. Contractor shall provide Purchaser's trained technicians with unlimited access to its Technical Assistance Center(TAC) to obtain support for problem identification and for the resolution of complex problems and other technical support services, twenty-four(24)hours a day, seven(7)days a week,toll free at(800) 553-2447. Purchase can also e-mail to tac@cisco.com. During Business Days and Hours Contractor shall respond by telephone within 2 hours of any service call and shall promptly resolve all reported software problems and promptly provide remedial action, if appropriate. Critical problems shall be escalated as provided in Schedule D: Problem Escalation Procedures. 16.1.3. Contractor shall replace any failed parts or components via next Business Day delivery of replacement parts,provided the request is received prior to 3:00 p.m.,Pacific Time; or the following Business Day delivery if the request is received after 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time. Purchaser shall return the defective parts or components within ten(10)days. If Purchaser fails to return the defective parts or components,Contractor will charge Purchaser the costs therefor. Contractor shall pay the costs for delivery and return shipment of the failed Equipment. Replacement parts will be at the current manufacturing revision levels. Purchaser shall be responsible for any costs associated with reinstallation. 16.2. Option Plan 2-Full Service Maintenance 16.2.1. Contractor's Full Service Maintenance shall include all the services described above as Cisco's SMARTnetTM services and in addition shall provide the following on-site services. 16.2.2. For"major"failures(system down), Contractor's factory-certified technical staff shall arrive at Purchaser's site within eight(8)Business Hours of a service call to provide on-site support for Purchaser's Equipment hardware and software problems. 16.2.3. Contractor shall provide full restoration of operations within twenty-four(24)hours of Purchaser's report of a problem or failure. Critical problems shall be escalated as provided in Schedule D: Problem Escalation Procedures. 16.2.4. Contractor shall provide all parts, labor,and material required for hardware maintenance, labor for field installation of major software upgrades, and installation of all mandatory engineering and factory change notices. 17. Documentation Contractor shall provide two(2)complete sets of documentation to Purchaser for each Equipment order, at no additional cost to Purchaser. Documentation shall be comprehensive,well structured,and indexed for easy reference,shall include technical,electrical,maintenance,and installation information and specifications,and shall come in the form of manuals,guides,driver diskettes and CD ROMs. Contractor shall also provide State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 9 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT updates to the Equipment documentation as available, at no additional cost to Purchaser,so long as Purchaser is under warranty or a maintenance plan. Contractor will maintain a special Web page which will contain updates, technical notes and other information. 18. Contractor Commitments, Warranties and Representations Any written commitment by Contractor within the scope of this Master Contract shall be binding upon Contractor. Failure of Contractor to fulfill such a commitment may constitute breach and shall render the Contractor liable for damages due Purchaser under the terms of this Master Contract. For purposes of this Master Contract,a commitment by Contractor,which must be in writing, includes: (1)prices,discounts, and options committed to remain in force over a specified period of time;and(2)any warranty or representation made by Contractor in its Proposal or contained in any literature,descriptions, drawings or specifications accompanying or referred to in a Proposal,as to Equipment or software performance or any other physical, design or functional characteristics of a machine, software package,system, training, services or other products within the scope of this Master Contract. 19. Year 2000 Compliance Warranty 19.1. Contractor warrants fault free performance in the processing of date and date-related data including,but not limited to calculating,comparing, and sequencing by all Equipment and software products, individually and in combination, from the commencement of this Master Contract. Fault free performance shall include the manipulation of this data when dates are in the 20th or 21 st centuries and shall be transparent to the user. Failure to comply with Year 2000 requirements shall be considered a breach of contract. 19.2. In the event equipment that is not yet Year 2000 compliant is added to this Contract as provided in the provision titled Additional Services and Equipment,Contractor,through its warranty and maintenance programs,will provide the necessary bug fixes,upgrades and software releases in order that such equipment will comply with the date requirements of the year 2000. Purchaser's Authority and Responsibilities 20. Purchaser Use of Master Contract To benefit from use of this Master Contract Purchaser shall comply with Software License Terms and Export Restrictions as set forth immediately below and the notice requirements set forth in the provision titled Contractor's Proprietary Information. Reference of this Master Contract Number and/or Purchaser's signature on the order document signifies agreement to comply with Contractor's software license terms, export restrictions and protection of Contractor's confidential or proprietary information. 21. Software License Terms 21.1. Contractor grants to Purchaser a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use the Contractor's software features paid for("Software")in object code form solely on a single central processing unit owned or leased by Purchaser or otherwise embedded in equipment provided by Contractor. Purchaser may make one(1)archival copy of the Software provided Purchase affixes to such copy all copyright,confidentiality and proprietary notices that appear on the original. Contractor retains all title to, and, except as expressly licensed herein,all rights to the Software,all copies thereof and all related documentation. Any invoices of Contractor that refer to such items do not convey title to, or patent rights,copyrights or any other proprietary interest in,such items to Purchaser. 21.2. LIMITATIONS: Except as expressly authorized above,Purchaser shall not: State of Washington Intranet Routers '� Department of Information Services 10 Q:\COntract\K97MST0I2.AGT 21.2.1. Copy, in whole or in part, Software or documentation; 21.2.2. Modify the Software; 21.2.3. Reverse compile or reverse assemble all or any portion of the Software; or 21.2.4. Rent, lease, distribute,sell or create derivative works of the Software. 21.3. Nondisclosure. Purchaser agrees that aspects of the licensed materials, including the specific design and structure of individual programs,constitute trade secrets and/or copyrighted material of Contractor. Purchaser agrees not to disclose,provide,or otherwise make available such trade secrets or copyrighted material in any form to any third party without the prior written consent of Contractor,unless there is a public records request pursuant to chapter 42.17 RCW. If Purchaser should receive a public records request for such information,Purchaser will follow the procedures set forth under the provision titled Contractor's Proprietary Information. Purchaser agrees to implement reasonable security measures to protect such trade secrets and copyrighted material. 21.4. Restricted Rights. In the event title to any Equipment ever passes to an entity of the federal government through direct sale or resale or otherwise,the following restricted rights apply. Contractor's Software is provided to non-DOD entities with RESTRICTED RIGHTS and its supporting documentation is provided with LIMITED RIGHTS. Use, duplication,or disclosure by the Government is subject to the restrictions as set forth in subparagraph(c)of the Commercial Computer Software-Restricted Rights clause at FAR 52.227-19. In the event the license is to a DOD agency,the government's rights in Software,supporting documentation, and technical data is governed by the restrictions in the Technical Data Commercial Items clause at DFARS 252.227- 7015 and DFARS 227.7202. 22. Export Restrictions Purchaser shall not transport or transmit,directly or indirectly,the Equipment or any technical data received from Contractor,nor the direct product derived therefrom,outside the United States or Canada without Contractor's prior written consent and without complying with all export laws and regulations of the United States. 23. Related Agreements Purchaser and Contractor may enter into additional agreements for software licensing,training,warranty, maintenance,installation,or configuration and engineering support directly related to Equipment acquisitions made under this Master Contract,hereinafter referred to as"Related Agreements." Related Agreements cannot contain terms and conditions in contradiction with the terms and conditions set forth in this Master Contract,and the terms and conditions of this Master Contract take precedence over any terms and conditions in any Related Agreements. Related Agreements may survive the term of this Master Contract. Because Related Agreements have not been approved as to form by the Office of the Attorney General.Purchaser should provide its own legal review and shall hold DIS harmless from any consequences resulting from any inadequacy of the Related Agreements. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services I 1 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contract Termination - 24. Termination for Default 24.1. If Contractor violates any material term or condition of this Master Contract or fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Master Contract,the DIS Contract Administrator or the affected Purchaser shall give Contractor written notice of the failure or violation,and the failure or violation shall be corrected by Contractor within thirty(30)calendar days or as otherwise mutually agreed. If Contractor's failure or violation is not so corrected,this Master Contract may be terminated immediately by written notice from the DIS Contracting Officer to Contractor,or Purchaser's order may be terminated by written notice from Purchaser to Contractor. The option to terminate this Master Contract shall be at the sole discretion of DIS. 24.2. In the event DIS terminates this Contract or Purchaser terminates an order,DIS or Purchaser shall have the right to procure the Equipment and Related Services that are the subject of this Master Contract on the open market, and Contractor shall be liable for all damages including,but not limited to: (1)the cost difference between the original Master Contract price for the Equipment and Related Services and the replacement cost of such Equipment and Related Services acquired from another Contractor; (2)if applicable,all administrative costs directly related to the replacement of the Master Contract,such as costs of competitive bidding,mailing, advertising, applicable fees, charges or penalties,staff time costs; and; (3)any other costs to Purchaser or DIS resulting from Contractor's breach. Purchaser or DIS shall have the right to deduct from any monies due to Contractor or that thereafter become due, an amount for damages that Contractor will owe Purchaser or DIS for Contractor's default. 24.3. If either DIS or Purchaser violates any material term or condition of this Master Contract or fails to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its performance obligations under this Master Contract, Contractor shall give the DIS Contracting Officer or Purchaser,as appropriate, written notice of such failure,which shall be corrected by DIS or Purchaser within thirty(30)calendar days. If DIS' failure to perform is not so corrected this Master Contract may be terminated immediately by written notice from Contractor to the DIS Contracting Officer. If Purchaser's failure to perform is not so corrected.Purchaser's order may be terminated by written notice from Contractor to Purchaser. 24.4. In the event a Purchaser violates any of the provisions set forth in Software License Terms or in Contractor's Proprietary Information, Contractor may immediately terminate that Purchaser's order and right to make further purchases under this Master Contract and shall give written notice of such termination to Purchaser and shall also so inform the DIS Contracting Officer. 24.5. If the Failure to Perform is without the defaulting parry's fault or negligence,the termination shall be deemed a Termination for Convenience. 24.6. This section shall not apply to any failure to perform that results from the willful or negligent acts or omissions of the aggrieved party. 25. Termination for Convenience 25.1. When in the best interest of Purchaser or DIS, the DIS Contracting Officer may terminate this Master Contract,in whole or in part,by giving fourteen(14)calendar days written notice to Contractor. Invocation of the Termination for Withdrawal of Authority,or Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds sections shall be deemed a Termination for Convenience but will not require fourteen(14)calendar days written notice. 25.2. If this Master Contract is so terminated,Purchaser is liable only for payments required by the terms of this Contract for Equipment and Related Services received and accepted by Purchaser State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 12 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT prior to the effective date of termination. 26. Termination for Withdrawal of Authority In the event the authority of Purchaser or DIS to perform any of its duties is withdrawn,reduced,or limited in any way after the commencement of this Master Contract and prior to normal completion,DIS may terminate this Master Contract under the Termination for Convenience section.This section shall not be construed to permit DIS to terminate this Master Contract to acquire similar Equipment or Services from a third party. 27. Termination for Non-Allocation of Funds If funds are not allocated to continue this Master Contract in any future period,Purchaser or DIS will not be obligated to pay any further charges for Services, including the net remainder of agreed to consecutive periodic payments remaining unpaid beyond the end of the then-current period. In such case,Purchaser or DIS agrees to notify Contractor at the earliest opportunity of the non-allocation. No penalty shall accrue to Purchaser or DIS for exercising its rights under this section. This section shall not be construed to permit Purchaser or DIS to terminate this Master Contract to acquire similar Equipment or Services from a third party. 28. Termination for Conflict of Interest DIS may terminate this Master Contract by written notice to Contractor if DIS determines,after due notice and examination,that any party has violated: Ethics in Public Service, chapter 42.52 RCW, or any other laws regarding ethics in public acquisitions and procurement and performance of contracts. In the event this Master Contract is terminated for Conflict of Interest,DIS shall be entitled to pursue the same remedies as it could pursue in the event Contractor breaches this Master Contract. - 29. Termination Procedure 29.1. Upon termination of all or part of this Master Contract and in addition to any other rights provided in this Contract,DIS may require Contractor to deliver to Purchaser or DIS,as appropriate, any property or Equipment specifically produced or acquired for the performance of such part of this Contract as has been terminated. 29.2. Unless otherwise provided herein,Purchaser shall pay to Contractor the agreed-upon price, if separately stated, for Equipment or Services received and accepted by Purchaser,provided that, m no event shall Purchaser pay to Contractor an amount greater than Contractor would have been entitled to if this Master Contract had not been terminated. Failure to agree with such determination shall be a dispute within the meaning of the Disputes section of this Contract. Purchaser may withhold from any amounts due Contractor for such completed work or Services, such sum as Purchaser determines necessary to protect Purchaser from potential loss or liability. 29.3. Within thirty(30)calendar days after notice,Contractor shall pay any damages due DIS or Purchaser. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 13 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Disputes and Remedies 30. Disputes Disputes arising between Purchaser and Contractor shall be referred to the DIS Contract Administrator for resolution. Disputes not so resolved shall be referred to an alternative dispute resolution procedure,such as mediation,prior to initiating any litigation of any aspect of this Master Contract. The disputants shall share equally in the costs associated with the dispute resolution procedure. 31. Attorneys' Fees and Costs If any party brings litigation to enforce any term,condition, or section of this Master Contract,or as a result of this Master Contract in any way, the prevailing party shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees, together with necessary fees,expenses and costs incurred with such litigation rendered at both trial and appellate levels, as well as subsequent to judgment in obtaining execution thereof. 32. Non-Exclusive Remedies The remedies provided for in this Master Contract shall not be exclusive but are in addition to all other remedies available under law. 33. Liquidated Damages 33.1. Liquidated Damages-General 33.1.1. Any delay by Contractor in meeting the delivery or installation date,as applicable, will interfere with the proper implementation of Purchaser's programs, causing loss or damage to Purchaser. 33.1.2. As it would be impracticable to fix the actual damage sustained in the event of such failure to perform,Purchaser and Contractor agree that the amount of damage sustained will be the amount set forth in the following sections. The parties agree that the Contractor shall pay such amounts as liquidated damages and not as a penalty. 33.1.3. Liquidated damages provided under the terms of the Master Contract are subject to the same limitations as provided in the section entitled Limitation of Liability. 33.2. Liquidated Damages- Specific 33.2.1. If Contractor fails to deliver or install the Equipment by the agreed upon delivery or installation date, as applicable, Contractor shall provide a revised delivery or installation schedule and pay to Purchaser as fixed and agreed upon liquidated damages,in lieu of all other damages due to such delay, an amount equal to two percent(2%)of the purchase price of the Equipment up to a maximum of one thousand dollars(S 1,000.00)per day for each calendar day between the specified delivery or installation date and the date that Contractor actually delivers or installs the Equipment. 33.2.2. If the revised delivery or installation date is more than thirty(30)calendar days from the original delivery or installation date,Purchaser may immediately terminate,by written notice to Contractor, Contractor's right to deliver or install the Equipment. Purchaser may obtain substitute Equipment from another Contractor. In this event,Contractor shall State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 14 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT be liable for fixed and agreed upon liquidated damages in the amount specified above,in lieu of all other damages due to such delay,until substitute Equipment is delivered or installed,or a maximum of thirty(30)calendar days have elapsed from the original delivery or installation date. 34. Failure to Perform If Contractor fails to perform any substantial obligation under this Master Contract,Purchaser shall give Contractor written notice of such failure to perform If after thirty(30)calendar days from the date of the written notice,Contractor still has not performed,then without penalty to Purchaser,Purchaser may withhold all monies due and payable to Contractor until such failure to perform is cured or otherwise resolved. 35. Limitation of Liability 35.1. The parties agree that neither Contractor nor Purchaser shall be liable to each other,regardless of the form of action, for consequential,incidental, indirect,or special damages except a claim or demand based on patent or copyright infringement,in which case liability shall be as set forth elsewhere in this Master Contract. The damages specified in the sections titled OSHA/WISHA, Termination for Default and Review of Contractor's Records are not consequential,incidental, indirect, or special damages as those terms are used in this section. 35.2. Neither Contractor nor Purchaser shall be liable for damages arising from causes beyond the reasonable control and without the fault or negligence of either Contractor or Purchaser. Such causes may include,but are not restricted to, acts of God or the public enemy, acts of a governmental body other than Purchaser acting in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, war, explosions, fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics, quarantine restrictions,strikes, freight embargoes,shortage of supplies,and unusually severe weather;but in every case the delays must be beyond the reasonable control and without fault or negligence of Contractor,Purchaser, or their respective subcontractors. 35.3. If delays are caused by a subcontractor without its fault or negligence,neither Contractor nor Purchaser shall be liable for damages for delays, unless the Equipment or Services were obtainable on comparable terms from other sources in sufficient time to permit Contractor or Purchaser to meet its required performance schedule. 35.4. Neither party shall be liable for personal injury or damage to the other parry's property except personal injury or damage to property proximately caused by such part's respective fault or negligence. 35.5. Notwithstanding anything else herein,all liability of Contractor under this Contract or otherwise shall be limited to the greater of one million dollars(S 1.000,000)or the money paid to Contractor under this Contract during the twelve(12)month period preceding the event or circumstances giving rise to such liability. This limitation of liability is per incident and will not apply to costs related to the defense or settlement of intellectual property rights claims, or to claims for personal injury or death proximately caused by Contractor's fault or negligence,or to claims trade under the Save Harmless provision of the Contract. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 15 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contract Administration 36. Notices Any notice or demand or other communication required or permitted under this Master Contract or applicable law(except notice of malfunctioning Equipment)shall be effective only if it is in writing, properly addressed,and delivered in person, or sent by facsimile transmission,or by a recognized courier service, or deposited with the United States Postal Service as first-class certified mail,postage prepaid and return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses or phone numbers: to Contractor at: to DIS at: Cisco Systems, Inc. State of Washington Legal Department Department of Information Services 170 West Tasman Drive Attn: Contract Administrator San Jose, CA 95 1 34-1 706 P.O. Box 42445 Fax number: (408) 526-7019 512 - 12th Avenue SE Olympia,WA 98504-2445 Fax number: (360) 664-0711 or to K-20 Purchasers at the address and fax number listed on their purchase order. Notwithstanding RCW 1.12.070,such communications shall be effective upon the earlier of receipt or four (4)calendar days after mailing. The notice address and fax numbers as provided herein may be changed by written notice as provided above. 37. Entire Agreement This Master Contract sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and except as provided in the section titled Contractor Commitments,Warranties and Representations,understandings, agreements,representations, or warranties not contained in this Contract or a written amendment hereto shall not be binding on either party. Except as provided herein,no alteration of any of the terms, conditions,delivery,price,quality,or Specifications of this Contract will be effective without the written consent of both parties. 38. Mandatory Provisions of RFP are Substantive Terms The mandatory RFP provisions and the provisions of Contractor's Proposal are incorporated into and are essential substantive terms of this Master Contract. Contractor will be bound by all of the mandatory provisions of the DIS RFP,Exhibit A,and Equipment provided under this Master Contract shall meet or exceed all of the mandatory technical requirements therein. 39. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 16 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Section Headings, Incorporated Documents and Order of Precedence 39.1. The headings used herein are inserted for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the sections. 39.2. Each of the documents listed below is, by this reference,incorporated into this Master Contract as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency in this Master Contract,the inconsistency shall be resolved in the following order of precedence: a) Applicable federal and state statutes,laws,and regulations; b) Sections of this Master Contract K97-MST-012; c) Schedule A-Authorized Equipment and Price List; d) Exhibit A- State of Washington,DIS Request for Proposal for Intranet Routers dated Noy ember ;. 1996. e) Exhibit B-Contractor's Proposal, dated November 25, 1996 including all written information provided with Contractor's Proposal; f) The terms and conditions of Related Agreements, if any; g) The terms and conditions contained on Purchaser's purchase documents,* if used; and, h) All Contractor or manufacturer publications,written materials and schedules,charts, diagrams, tables,descriptions, and other written representations Contractor made available to Purchaser and used to effect the sale of Equipment to Purchaser,or purports the Equipment is fit for a particular purpose or attests to the Equipment's engineering level, operating condition, functions,capabilities, or merchantability. *Contractor will not be bound by additional terms and conditions on Purchaser's order forms unless Contractor agrees to them in writing. 40. Additional Services and Equipment DIS and Contractor agree that additional Services and/or Equipment,which are appropriate to the scope of this Master Contract,may be added to this Master Contract(Schedule A hereto)by an instrument in writing, with the mutual consent of both parties. Such writing shall include a specific description of the additional Services and/or Equipment,pricing and additional terms and conditions as relevant. The additional Services and/or Equipment shall be available under the same terms and conditions established herein, unless otherwise agreed to in a signed writing. 41. Authority for Modifications and Amendments No modification, amendment,alteration, addition or waiver of any section or condition of this Master Contract shall be effective or binding unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of Contractor and DIS. 42. Independent Status of Contractor In the performance of this Contract,the parties will be acting in their individual,corporate or governmental capacities and not as agents,employees,partners,joint venturers, or associates of one another. The employees or agents of one party shall not be deemed or construed to be the employees or agents of the other parry for any purpose whatsoever,nor will Contractor make any claim of right,privilege or benefit which would accrue to an employee under chapter 41.06 RCW, chapter 23B.16 RCW,or Title 51 RCW. 43. Governing Law This Master Contract shall be governed in all respects by the law and statutes of the state of Washington. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 17 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Jurisdiction for any action hereunder shall be the Superior Court for the state of Washington. Venue of any action hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for Thurston County,Washington. 44. Subcontractors Contractor may,with prior written permission from the DIS Contract Administrator,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,enter into subcontracts with third parties for performance of any part of Contractor's duties and obligations. In no event shall the existence of a subcontract operate to release or reduce Contractor's liability to Purchaser or DIS for any breach in the performance of Contractor's dunes. For purposes of this Master Contract, Contractor agrees that all subcontractors shall be deemed to be agents of Contractor. Contractor further agrees to hold Purchaser or DIS harmless from acts or omissions of Contractor's subcontractors, their agents,or employees,subject to the limitations set forth in the Limitation of Liability section of this Contract. Purchaser or DIS shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from personal injury,physical loss,harassment of employees, or violations of the Patent and Copyright Indemnification section of this Contract occasioned by the acts or omissions of Contractor's subcontractors,their agents or employees. The Patent And Copyright Indemnification section of this Contract shall apply to all subcontractors. 45. Assignment 45.1. With the prior written consent of DIS,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, Contractor may assign this Master Contract, including the proceeds hereof,provided that, such assignment shall not operate to relieve Contractor of any of its duties and obligations hereunder,nor shall such assignment affect any remedies available to Purchaser or DIS that may arise from any breach of this Contract, its supplements, or warranties made herein, including but not limited to rights of setoff. 45.2. With the prior written consent of Contractor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, DIS may assign this Master Contract to any public agency, commission,board,or the like,within the political boundaries of the state of Washington,provided that, such assignment shall not operate to relieve DIS of any of its duties and obligations hereunder. 46. Publicity Contractor agrees to submit to DIS all advertising, sales promotion,and other publicity matters relating to this agreement or any Equipment furnished by Contractor wherein Purchaser's or DIS' name is mentioned, or language is used which infers or implies a connection with Purchaser or DIS. Contractor further agrees not to publish or use such advertising, sales promotion,or publicity matter without the prior written consent of DIS. 47. Review of Contractor's Records 47.1. Contractor and its subcontractors shall maintain books,records,documents and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature invoiced in the performance of this Master Contract. Such records shall be retained for six(6)years after the expiration or termination of this Master Contract. Records involving matters in litigation related to this Master Contract shall be kept for one(1)year following the termination of litigation,including all appeals, if the litigation has not terminated within five(5)years from the date of expiration or termination of the Contract. 47.2. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 18 Q:1Contract\K97MST012.AGT All such records shall be subject at reasonable times and upon prior notice,to examination, inspection,copying,or audit by personnel authorized by the DIS Contract Administrator or the Office of the State Auditor,and federal officials authorized by law,rule,regulation, or contract, when applicable. During the term of this Master Contract, access to these items will be provided within Thurston County. During the six(6)year period after the Contract term or five(5)year term following litigation,delivery of and access to these items will be at no cost to the State. Contractor shall be responsible for any audit exceptions or disallowed costs incurred by Contractor or any of its subcontractors. 47.3. The records retention and review requirements of this section shall be incorporated by Contractor in its subcontracts. 47.4. It is agreed that books,records,documents and other evidence of accounting procedures and practices related to Contractor's cost structure, including overhead,general and administrative expenses,and profit factors,shall be excluded from review unless the cost or any other material issue under this Contract is calculated or derived from these factors. General 48. Purchase Use Limitation This Contract is only for the purchase of Equipment in the United States or Canada. For purchase of Equipment to be used outside of the United States or Canada, a different purchasing vehicle with different terms and conditions will apply. Furthermore,Purchaser shall comply with the provisions set forth in the section above titled Export Restrictions. 49. Patent and Copyright Indemnification 49.1. Contractor will at its expense,defend or settle any claim against Purchaser that the Equipment, Software, or work products supplied hereunder infiinge(s)on any patent, copyright, or trademark in the United States or Canada. Contractor will pay resulting costs, damages and attorneys' fees finally awarded,provided that, Purchaser: a) Promptly notifies Contractor in writing of the claim; and b) Cooperates with and agrees to use its best efforts to encourage the Washington State Office of the Attorney General to grant Contractor sole control of the defense and all related settlement negotiations. 49.2. Contractor will pay all costs of such defense and settlement and any costs and damages awarded by a court or incurred by Purchaser, except costs paid to the Office of the Attorney General as legal fees. If such claim has occurred,or in Contractor's opinion is likely to occur, Purchaser agrees to permit Contractor at its option and expense, either to procure for Purchaser the right to continue using the Equipment or to replace or modify the Equipment to make it noninfringmg and functionally equivalent. If use of the Equipment is enjoined by a court and Contractor determines that none of these alternatives is reasonably available,Contractor,at its risk and expense,will take back the Equipment and refund its depreciated value. No termination charges will be payable on the returned Equipment,and Purchaser will pay only those charges which were payable prior to the return date. Depreciated value shall be calculated on the basis of a useful life of five(5)years commencing on the date of purchase,and shall be an equal amount per year over the useful life. The depreciation for fractional parts of a year shall be prorated on the basis of 365 days per year. In the event the Equipment has been installed less than one year,Contractor shall refund to Purchaser transportation toss to the initial installation site. 49.3. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 19 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contractor has no liability for any claim of infringement arising from: a) Contractor's compliance with any designs,specifications or instructions of Purchaser; b) Modification of the Equipment by Purchaser or a third parry,unless such modification has been required by Contractor; c) Use of the Equipment in a way not specified by Contractor; or, d) Use of the Equipment with equipment not supplied by Contractor; unless the claim arose against Contractor's Equipment, Software or Services independently of any of these specified actions. 49.4. The foregoing states the entire obligation of Contractor with respect to the infringement of patents, copyrights and trademarks. 50. Save Harmless Contractor shall protect, indemnify and save Purchaser harmless from and against any damage,cost, or liability, including reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from such claim, for any or all injuries to persons or damage to tangible property arising from intentional, willful or negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, its officers,employees, agents, or subcontractors. 51. Industrial Insurance Coverage Prior to performing work under this Contract,Contractor shall provide or purchase industrial insurance coverage for its employees, as may be required of an"employer"as defined in Title 51 RCW, and shall maintain full compliance with Title 51 RCW during the course of this Contract. Purchaser will not be responsible for payment of industrial insurance premiums or for any other claim or benefit for Contractor, or any subcontractor or employee of Contractor, which might arise under the industrial insurance laws during the performance of duties and services under this Contract. 52. Insurance 52.1. Liability and Auto Insurance. Contractor shall, dicing the term of this Contract,maintain in full force and effect, the insurance described in this section with an insurance carrier or carriers licensed to conduct business in the state of Washington and approved by the DIS Contract Administrator,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The minimum acceptable limits and types of coverage shall not be less than$1 million commingled single limit per occurrence for each of the following categories: 52.1.1. Public liability covering the risks of bodily injury,property damage and personal injury (including death); 52.1.2. General Business Liability; and 52.1.3. Automobile liability(owned or nonowned)covering the risks of public liability and property damage. 52.2. Premiums on all insurance policies shall be paid by Contractor or its Subcontractors. Such insurance policies provided for the Purchaser pursuant to this section shall name DIS as an additional insured and shall have a condition that they not be revoked by the insurer until thirty (30)calendar days after notice of intended revocation thereof shall have first been given to DIS by such insurer. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 20 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT 52.3. Contractor shall famish to DIS copies of certificates of all required insurance within thirty(30) calendar days of the execution date of this Contract. 53. Licensing Standards Contractor shall comply with all applicable local,state,and federal licensing requirements and standards necessary in the performance of this Contract. (See for example,chapter 19.02 RCW for state licensing requirements and definitions.) 54. OSHAIWISHA Contractor represents and warrants that its products, when shipped,are designed and manufactured to meet then current federal and state safety and health regulations. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold Purchaser harmless from all damages assessed against Purchaser as a result of the failure of the items furnished under this Contract to so comply. 55. Compliance with Civil Rights Laws During the performance of this Contract,Contractor shall comply with all federal and applicable state nondiscrimination laws, including but not limited to: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,42 USC 12101 et seq.;the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA); and Title 49.60 RCW,Washington Law Against Discrimination. In the event of Contractor's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any nondiscrimination law,regulation or policy,this Contract may be rescinded or terminated in whole or in part under the Termination for Default section, and the Contractor may be declared ineligible for further Contracts with Purchaser. In addition to the cancellation of this Contract, Contractor may be subject to penalties under federal and state law. 56. Severability The terms and conditions of this Contract are declared severable. If any term or condition of this Contract or the application thereof to any person(s)or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms,conditions, or applications which can be given effect without the invalid term,condition, or application. 57. Waiver Waiver of any breach of a term or condition of this Contract shall not be deemed a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. No term or condition of this Contract shall be waived,modified, or deleted except by a written instrument signed by the parties hereto. 58. Treatment of Assets 58.1. Title to all property furnished by Purchaser shall remain with Purchaser. Title to all property furnished by Contractor,for which Contractor is entitled to reimbursement under this Contract, other than rental payments, shall pass to and vest in Purchaser pursuant to the Title provisions above. As used in this section Treatment of Assets, if the"property"is Contractor's proprietary, copyrighted works,only the applicable license,not title,passes to Purchaser. 58.2. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 21 Q:\Contract\K97MST012.AGT Any property of Purchaser firrnished to Contractor,unless otherwise provided herein or approved by Purchaser,shall be used only for the performance of this Master Contract. 58.3. Contractor shall be responsible for any loss or damage to the property of Purchaser which results from Contractor's negligence or which results from Contractor's failure to maintain and administer that property in accordance with sound management practices. 58.4. Upon loss,destruction,or damage to any Purchaser property,Contractor shall notify Purchaser thereof and shall take all reasonable steps to protect the property from further damage. 58.5. Contractor shall surrender to Purchaser all Purchaser's property prior to settlement upon completion, termination,or cancellation of this Contract. 58.6. All references to Contractor under this section shall also include Contractor's employees, agents, or subcontractors. 59. Contractor's Proprietary Information Contractor acknowledges that DIS and Purchaser are subject to chapter 42.17 RCW, the Public Disclosure Act, and that this Master Contract shall be a public record as defined in RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.340. Any specific information which Contractor claims to be confidential or proprietary,must be clearly identified as such by Contractor. To the extent consistent with chapter 42.17 RCW,DIS and Purchaser shall maintain the confidentiality of all information marked confidential or proprietary. If a request is made to view Contractor's proprietary information,DIS or Purchaser,as appropriate,will immediately notify Contractor of the request and of the date that the records will be released to the requester unless Contractor obtains a court order enjoining disclosure. If Contractor fails to obtain the court order enjoining that disclosure,DIS or Purchaser will release the requested information on the date specified. Activity Reporting and Administration Fee 60. DIS Master Contract Administration Fee and Collection 60.1. K-20 Purchasers are exempt from and shall not pay the DIS Master Contract Administration Fee for purchases made under this Contract. All purchases trade by other Purchasers under this Master Contract are subject to a DIS Master Contract Administration Fee, collected by Contractor and remitted to DIS. 60.2. The Master Contract Administration Fee is three tenths of one percent(.3%or.003)of the purchase price. The purchase price is defined as total invoice price less sales tax. 60.3. The Master Contract Administration Fee shall be invoiced by Contractor to all Purchasers as a separate detailed line item on Purchaser's invoice. K-20 Purchasers are exempt from the Fee and their line item shall be zero dollars($0). 60.4. Contractor shall remit the Master Contract Administration Fee directly to the DIS Contract Administrator along with the Master Contract Activity Report. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 22 Q:\Contract1K97MST012.AGT 61. Master Contract Activity Reporting 61.1. Contractor shall submit to the DIS Contract Administrator a monthly Activity Report of all Equipment and Related Services purchases made pursuant to this Master Contract. The report must identify: a) This Master Contract number,K97-MST-012; b) Each Purchaser making purchases during that month,separated into K-20 Purchasers and all other Purchasers; c) The total invoice price, excluding sales tax for each Purchaser; d) The sum of all invoice prices,excluding sales tax, for all K-20 Purchasers; e) The sum of all invoice prices, excluding sales tax, for all other Purchasers; and f) The DIS Master Contract Administration Fee. 61.2. This report and the DIS Master Contract Administration Fee must be submitted by the 15th calendar day of the second month following the month in which Contractor invoiced Purchaser. Contractor shall submit this report according to the layout specified by the DIS Contract Administrator. 61.3. This report may be corrected or modified by the DIS Contract Administrator with subsequent written notice to Contractor. 61.4. Monthly reports are required even if no activity occurred. W 62. Failure to Remit Reports/Fees 62.1. Failure of Contractor to remit the Master Contract Activity Report together with the Master Contract Administration Fee may be considered a Failure to Perform on the part of Contractor, which may result in DIS terminating this Master Contract with Contractor. 62.2. Failure of any Purchaser to pay the Master Contract Administration Fee may result in that Purchaser forfeiting its right to purchase under this Master Contract. Contractor shall notify the DIS Contract Administrator when any Purchaser fails to pay the Master Contract Administration Fee. 62.3. The DIS Contract Administrator will notify Contractor of any Purchaser who has forfeited its right to purchase under this Master Contract. After such notification, any sale by Contractor to a forfeiting Purchaser may be considered Failure to Perform by Contractor. 62.4. If the performance issues are resolved,DIS at its option,may reinstate a Contractor's participation or a Purchaser's right to purchase. State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 23 Q:1Contract\K97MST012.AGT Contract Execution 63. Authority to Bind The signatories to this Master Contract represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Contract. 64. Counterparts This Master Contract may be executed in counterparts or in duplicate originals. Each counterpart or each duplicate shall be deemed an original copy of the Master Contract signed by each party, for all purposes. In Witness Whereof,the parties hereto,having read this Master Contract in its entirety, including all attachments, do agree in each and every particular and have thus set their hands hereunto. Approved Approved State of Washington, Cisco Systems, Inc. Department of Information Services Signature a ure Print or I YPC Narne Printor I ype Name Lille DUE t1tie Date Approved as to Form State of Washington, Office of the Attorney General 6ignluffe Print or i ype Name Assistant Attorney General I Me Date State of Washington Intranet Routers Department of Information Services 24 Q:\Contract1KVMST012.AGT ............. _. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PC PURCHASE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the quote of $157 , 629 . 90 from Technology Express for the purchase of eighty-sever. Hewlett- Packard Pentium II personal computers, and to authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary documents to complete the purchase, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS : Cover letter, call for quotes summary, copy of winning quote and copy of RFQ 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL,/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $157 , 629 . 90 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Technology Plan. 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H MEMORANDUM Date: November 24, 1998 To: City Council From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Services Re: Purchase of Personal Computers Prepared by: Bob Olson, Computer Operations Manager Background: As part of the Technology Plan, the City made a commitment to replacing most of the older personal computers in the City. This particular purchase represents the conclusion of our objective of replacing all 486 personal computers by the first quarter of 1999. With this purchase we will be replacing 87 of the 486-class machines throughout the City. Quote Results: We received 8 quotes from 6 different companies. The lowest quote was from Technology Express and has met our technical requirements. Please note that the recommended purchase of$157,629.90 includes 73 personal computers with 17" monitors at a unit price of$1,830.87 and 14 personal computers with 15" monitors at a unit price of$1,712.62. Both unit prices include tax. The budget for PCs in the Technology Plan was $2,200.00. Motion: Accept the quote of$157,629.90 from Technology Express for the purchase of eighty-seven Hewlett-Packard Pentium II personal computers, and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary documents to complete the purchase. City of Kent Results of the Call for Quotes for 87 HP Personal Computers On November 6, 1998 the Information Services Department sent out quote specifications for HP Personal Computers. We received 8 quotes from 6 different companies. The quotes ranged from a low of$157,629.90 to a high of $195,371.40. We are recommending awarding a contract to Technology Express for their quote of$157,629.90. Technology Express agrees to warehouse the PC's to insure uniformity. Please see the attached for a detailed breakdown of the quotes. City of Kent Results of Call for Quotes For Eighty-Seven HP Personal Computers and related Product Warranty Company Model Total Price Comments Technology Express Vectra VL8 350 157,629.90 Winning Bid Unisoft Vectra VL 350 168,581.84 Technology Intergration Vectra VL6 350 169,090.20 Discontinued CompUSA Vectra VL8 350 169,841.20 RDI Vectra VL8 350 170,291.87 Late not accepted Technology Express Vectra VL7 300 171,060.87 Discontinued CompUSA Vectra VL6 350 171,935.40 Discontinued Entex Vectra VL6 350 173,724.16 Late not accepted Inacom Vectra VL8 350 181,104.62 Quantity availability'?? Advance Technology Vectra VL6 350 184,582.69 Not a authorized HP service center Inacom Kayak XA 350 195,371.40 QUOTE FOR HP PERSONAL COMPUTERS. page 2 The City reserves the absolute right to accept or reject any equivalent product offered for any reason, with or without cause,by a supplier. auctes for each product shall include delivery to the City. Suppliers shall be responsible for all goods until delivered to and accepted by the City. Please submit quotas in the following format Additional materials may be attached. Company Name: TLOl S- // Company Address: O �o rhe./7 q g Contact Name and Phone Number. C. S Lcy ,I C •+ gOQ 373 S:77 A-*3.- Location of HP Warranty Repair Facility: It 711 Nof>+� Gee k '00wk,44 S. 4lOY Ro i4 ��j L /If 9& Do you have an 800 number for product or support questions?: gO O R7 3 :�Z778 Item: HP Model for this quote: Cost: 87 HP specified above.boveum li CPUs as O i1377 73 HP 17" monitors as specified VZ.zi,�rgP,� 7-4 � above. 6 ? 3 p &Y �-t 14 HP 15* monitors as specified above. 0 ? -� 00 Warranty as speafied above. i r �<ir� � �Z��Z• V� Washington State sales tax of 8.6%. Total Cost ^ 0, THERE ARE FOUR REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: I. Please attach a price guarantee guaranteeing the above price through December 31, 1998. 2 Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP reseller. 3. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP warranty service center. 4. Please attach a letter describing the procedure that the City would take a) in the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the first year of ownership, and b)in the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the a and 3'°years of ownership. Please attach any additional information with regard to 019 product or delivery of the product here: 1 n+e t 3 core .sww fo q��0 r�'e c/ c./, /fc >• T.k. Oymrs +. i... f<A0vrC rdvcr re rnJv-Ke V/11 'COem, ,n0ICkAe 51 c1Vdes tff 3 x C-o Ifoe b0'd 8TOV-698 90Z Sa0Ln.AaS u0l,�guLA0-4ui d00=£O 86-90-AON l TECHNOLOGY11711 North Credo Parkway South MT 2 900 _ suite 8 Fax (42, 80 98011 8282 Ln�u LnS (425)soy-sass FaX(a2s)ao6-s2s2 November 23, 1998 City of Kent To Whom it may Concern: Technology Express guarantee's the attached HP pricing through December 31, 1998. Technology Express agrees to warehouse product in our warehouse in order to insure uniformity.... If you have any questions you may contact me at (425) 806-8888 Ext.35. Thank you for this business opportunity. Sincerely, C ris Louden Technology Express hDIJ-23—r998 09:7? P.02 ®HEWLETTe PACKARD Renlewftekwd COMPN 1 hWliny Addmn 15816 SF.ImIt sQeet PO MIX DOW BdIevue.Washington 98008.1899 Bellevue,WA 9AW041156 On 4=4WAA August 10,1998 To Whom It May Concern: Technology Express,Inc.is an Anthorized Reseller for Hewlett-Packard Company's fall bne of pecsa nal computing and peripheral products. They we an Authorized Service Provider and are currently in compliance with HPs coon requirements. Regards, Dave Treadway District PSG Sales Manager DT/cs MTFL P.02 TECHNOLOGY11711 North Credo Parkway South Suite Bothell, 828 (azs)soy-sass8 80 FaX fazs>ao6-s2sz November 23, 1998 City of Kent To Whom it may Concern: In the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the first year of ownership Technology Express will provide the City of Kent with a number to call. Provide the serial #,contact name, and address. On-Site service will then be scheduled at no cost. Technology Express will also replace D.O.A. machines within 30 days at no cost to City of Kent. In the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the 2"d and and year of ownership Hewlett Packard provides parts only depot service for years 2 and 3 of their warranty. Technology Express will enhance this warranty and provide free labor assuming machine in question is delivered to Technology Express. If you have any questions you may contact me at (425) 806-8888 Ext.35. Thank you for this business opportunity. Sincerely, 1. Chris Louden Technology Express City of Kent Call for Quotes For Eight-Seven (87) HP Personal Computers, And related Product Warranty Issued: November 6, 1998 Date Due: November 23, 1998 Time Due: 12:00 noon, Pacific Standard Time Address Responses to: City Clerk ,r.o•I �1li' Quote for HP Personal Computers 220 4"' Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Mayor Jim Whim CALL FOR QUOTES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Kent, Washington, will receive sealed quotes at the Office of the City Clerk through November 23, 1998 to 12:00 noon, as shown on the clock adjacent to the City Clerk's Office on the 2n°floor of City Hall. Quotes will be clearly marked"QUOTE FOR HP PERSONAL COMPUTERS" on the outside of the envelope, addressed to the City Clerk, 220 4"'Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. No facsimiles will be considered. The City is seeking quotes for eighty-seven (87) Hewlett-Packard Pentium II computers from authorized HP resellers. Supplier must have authorized HP warranty service center in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area. Acceptable models are listed in the specification. Specifications can be obtained by contacting the City of Kent Information Services Department at 253- 520-4266. Quotes must be submitted in the format of the Specifications Document. No plea of mistake in the quote shall be available to the supplier as a defense to any action based upon the neglect or refusal to execute a contract. No supplier may withdraw his/her quote for a period of 30 days after the date the quote is due. The City of Kent reserves the right to reject any and all quotes, or waive any informalities in the process. The City of Kent will award this contract to the lowest and best responsible supplier, based on that supplier's quote, and shall be the sole judge thereof. Dated this 6`"day of November, 1998 Re: Ad above Published in the South County Journal on November 10, 1998 and November 17, 1998 Daily Journal of Commerce on November 10, 1998 and November 17, 1998 CALL FOR QUOTES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Kent, Washington, will receive sealed quotes at the Office of the City Clerk through November 23, 1998 to 12:00 noon, as shown on the clock adjacent to the City Clerk's Office on the 2n°floor of City Hall. Quotes will be clearly marked "QUOTE FOR HP PERSONAL COMPUTERS" on the outside of the envelope, addressed to the City Clerk, 220 4t"Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. No facsimiles will be considered. The City is seeking quotes for eighty-seven (87) Hewlett-Packard Pentium II computers from authorized HP resellers. Supplier must have authorized HP warranty service center in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area. Acceptable models are listed in the specification. Specifications can be obtained by contacting the City of Kent Information Services Department at 253- 520-4266. Quotes must be submitted in the format of the Specifications Document. No plea of mistake in the quote shall be available to the supplier as a defense to any action based upon the neglect or refusal to execute a contract. No supplier may withdraw his/her quote for a period of 30 days after the date the quote is due. The City of Kent reserves the right to reject any and all quotes, or waive any informalities in the process. The City of Kent will award this contract to the lowest and best responsible supplier, based on that supplier's quote, and shall be the sole judge thereof. Dated this 6`"day of November, 1998 QUOTE SPECIFICATIONS QUOTE FOR HP PERSONAL COMPUTERS The City intends to purchase eighty-seven HP Pentium II computers from an authorized Hewlett-Packard reseller. Supplier must have authorized HP warranty repair facility in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area. The City will purchase eighty-seven (87) HP computers. Five different HP models are listed, however supplier's quote must be for eighty-seven (87) identical CPUs; i.e., all eighty-seven (87) CPUs must be the same model. The monitors must consist of seventy-three (73) identical HP 17" monitors and fourteen (14) identical HP 15" monitors. Multiple quotes will be accepted from suppliers. Should any supplier elect to provide quotes for eighty- seven (87) CPUs of a different model, each quote should be delivered separately to the City. The City will receive the 87 machines in two shipments of 30 machines each and one shipment of 27 machines, with dates to be provided by the City. The City will take delivery of the first thirty (30) machines on December 7, 1998. Schedule of Events: Request for Quotes Issued: November 6, 1998 Request for Quotes Due: November 23, 1998 Notification to Apparently Successful Supplier. November 30, 1998 Approval by Kent City Council: December 1, 1998 Formal Acceptance of Quote: December 2, 1998 Delivery of First 30 Personal Computers December 7, 1998 Delivery of remaining computers To be determined by City - by approximately February 28, 1999 Please provide quote for the following: Eighty-seven (87) Hewlett-Packard Pentium II Personal Computers that conform, at a minimum, to the following specifications: All components must be original equipment manufacturer or HP OEM components. Minimum Configuration: Hewlett-Packard Pentium II Computers (as packaged by HP, models listed below) 64MBHPRAM 4.3 Gb UATA Hard Drive 24x IDE CD ROM Drive Network Card: 3Com 10/100 Base T For HP 17" monitor (D2837A or subsequent model) For HP 15" monitor() Three year parts and labor warranty, 1 year onsite (HP warranty) Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 Operating System (either is acceptable) Acceptable Models for Quote: ALL MODELS ARE DESKTOP MODELS • Kayak XA 300 Mhz Workstation, (or) • Vectra VL 300 Mhz Personal Computer (or) • Vectra VL 350 Mhz Personal Computer QUOTE FOR HP PERSONAL COMPUTERS, page 2 The City reserves the absolute right to accept or reject any equivalent product offered for any reason, with or without cause, by a supplier. Quotes for each product shall include delivery to the City. Suppliers shall be responsible for all goods until delivered to and accepted by the City. Please submit quotes in the following format. Additional materials may be attached. Company Name: Company Address: Contact Name and Phone Number: Location of HP Warranty Repair Facility: Do you have an 800 number for product or support questions?: Item: HP Model for this quote: Cost: 87 HP Pentium II CPUs as specified above. 73 HP 17" monitors as specified above. 14 HP 15" monitors as specified above. Warranty as specified above. Washington State sales tax of 8.6%. Total Cost: THERE ARE FOUR REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: 1. Please attach a price guarantee guaranteeing the above price through December 31, 1998. 2. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP reseller. 3. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP warranty service center. 4. Please attach a letter describing the procedure that the City would take a) in the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the first year of ownership, and b) in the event of a P.C. hardware problem in the 2n° and 3m years of ownership. Please attach any additional information with regard to the product or delivery of the product here: ................ Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PARKS SYSTEM SOFTWARE PURCHASE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with Escom Software Services Limited for the purchase of a Parks and Recreation System and Services, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents, as recommended by the Operations Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS : Contract, Operations Committee memo and Parks Selection Committee recommendation summary 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $125, 847 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Technology Plan 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I DATE: November 24, 1998 TO: Council Operations Committee FROM: Marty Mulholland,Director of Information Services (NMI RE: Parks and Recreation Software Systems/Purchase Recommendation Prepared by: Stan Waldrop, Senior Systems Analyst Background: As part of the Technology Plan, a number of business systems were identified for replacement including the Parks and Recreation System The current activity registration system is not Year 2000 compliant and will be unsupported after January 1999. Process: The selection process began in May 1998 with the formation of the Parks System Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of representatives from each Parks and Recreation Department area that would be using the new systems for day to day operations. In June 1998, the Selection Committee began establishing systems requirements, vendor evaluation criteria, and researching the Parks and Recreation Software market. The research and requirements gathering resulted in the City releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) on August 17, 1998. The City distributed 12 RFPs to Parks and Recreation vendors throughout the US and Canada and received 2 responses. After evaluating each proposal and checking each vendor's references, the Selection Committee determined that both proposals merited vendor product demonstrations. The City scheduled product demonstrations of each vendor's system to evaluate the system's capabilities in a rigorous scripted demonstration designed to highlight the desired functionality. After evaluating the product demonstrations, the Selection Committee determinedEscom was the preferred choice based on available information and made a site-visit to a municipality currently using the Escom system. Upon completion of the site visit, the Selection Committee recommended the Escom proposal based on Escom's industry experience, customer support, and customer references. Budget Impact and Summary: The Escom Software Services Limited system cost is projected to be $125,847. Attached documents include a budget summary, a list of department representatives on the Parks System Selection Committee, and a vendor evaluation summary. The first phase of the project is anticipated to begin by mid January 1999. Motion: To authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Escom Software Services Limited for the purchase of Parks and Recreation Systems and Services, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. Parks and Recreation System Software Budget: Parks System $105,247 Includes Activity Registration,Facility Scheduling,Membership, Point of Sale,Internet Registration,Touch Tone Registration, Internet Facility Inquiry,Point of Sale Hardware,Membership Hardware, Installation, Training, Sales Tax Contingency Funds $ 10,600 Estimated Conversion Costs $ 10,000 Total $125,847 Parks System Selection Committee Representatives: Stan Waldrop, Project Coordinator—Information Services Lori Hogan, Superintendent -Recreation & Cultural Services Lesli Opsahl,Administrative Assistant—Cultural Services Melanie Manning,Administrative Assistant—Kent Commons Doug Siegert,Recreation Facility Manager—Kent Commons Deann Thiry, Office Systems Tech U—Kent Commons Lea Bishop, Recreation Facility Manager—Senior Activity Center Cheryl Fraser, Recreation Facility Manager—Resource Center DATE: November 24, 1998 TO: Marty Mulholland,Director of Information Services FROM: Stan Waldrop, Senior Systems Analyst 0 RE: Parks and Recreation Software Systems Evaluation and Recommendation Background As part of the Technology Plan, a number of business systems were identified for replacement including the Parks and Recreation System. The current activity registration system is not Year 2000 compliant and will be unsupported after January 1999. The selection process began in May 1998 with the formation of the Parks System Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of representatives from each Parks and Recreation Department area that would be using the new systems for day to day operations. In June 1998, the Selection Committee began establishing systems requirements, vendor evaluation criteria, and researching the Parks and Recreation Software market. The research and requirements gathering resulted in the City releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) on August 17, 1998. The City distributed 12 RFPs to Parks and Recreation vendors throughout the US and Canada and received 2 responses. After evaluating each proposal and checking each vendor's references, the Selection Committee determined that both proposals merited vendor product demonstrations and subsequently scheduled the demonstrations. Scope The current Parks and Recreation System allows the tracking of activity registration through a combination of manual and automated processes. However, the scope of Parks and Recreation responsibilities encompasses more than just activity registration. The areas addressed by the new Parks and Recreation software system include: ♦ Activity Registration —Automated creation and tracking of activities and people enrolled in the activities. ♦ Facility Scheduling —Automated inventory and scheduling of Parks and Recreation system facilities. ♦ League Scheduling—Automated creation, scheduling, and tracking of team-sport activities. ♦ Membership —Automated sale and tracking of memberships for use of Parks and Recreation Facilities. ♦ Point of Sale—Automated, standardized point of sale and inventory system for handling the cashiering needs of the Parks and Recreation system. ♦ Internet Registration— Provides mechanisms for citizens to check class availability as well as register and pay for classes using the Internet ♦ Internet Facility Inquiry — Provide a method for citizens to check the schedule for Parks and Recreation Facilities. ♦ Touch Tone Registration — Provide a method for citizens to register and pay for classes using a touch tone telephone. By addressing each of these areas, the Parks and Recreation Department will increase the service quality and information access provided to the citizens of Kent. Evaluation Areas Each vendor was evaluated based on their proposal, product demonstration, and references. The areas in which the each vendor was evaluated include: ♦ Industry Experience—This area addresses the vendor's longevity in the industry, number of customer installations, and number of current customers. ♦ Customer Service—This area addresses the vendor's customer support structure and current customer experiences with the vendor. ♦ Product Functionality—This area addresses the perceived product functionality as it applies to the City of Kent's requirements. ♦ Product Demonstration — This area addresses the vendor's customer interaction as and responsiveness to customer requests. ♦ References —This area addresses the reputation of the vendor and customer experience with the vendor. ♦ Cost—This area addresses the overall cost of the vendor's solution. Vendor Evaluation The Selection Committee evaluated the vendors in each area detailed above. The evaluation results are given in the following: ♦ Industry Experience- Escom This area includes software development experience and Parks and Recreation specific experience. Parks and Recreation application experience was considered of greatest importance. Escom's 20 years of experience in the Parks and Recreation market and over 300 installations clearly give them the advantage in this area. ♦ Customer Service—Escom This area evaluated the vendor's customer support structure as well as client perceptions of the vendor's customer service. Escom's ability to provide outstanding customer support to so many clients combined with their customer support structure gave Escom the advantage in this area. ♦ Product Functionality—Equal This area evaluated the application's functionality as applied to the City of Kent's requirements and the application's technical architecture. Both the Class application from Escom and the BookIt application from SRI met a majority of the City's requirements with no difference in perceived functionality between the applications with the exception of League Scheduling. Neither application provided an acceptable solution for League Scheduling. Each application's technical architecture offered advantages and disadvantages, however, there was no clear evidence that one application was technically superior to the other. In terms of product functionality, the Selection Committee viewed both applications as equivalent. ♦ Product Demonstration—Equal The product demonstrations allowed the Selection Committee to evaluate each application's functionality and evaluate how each vendor interacts with a client. Both vendor's followed the demonstration scripts as closely as their product allowed and answered the Selection Committee's questions. There was no advantage for either vendor in this area. ♦ References—Escom This area was used to evaluate other parks and recreation agencies' experience with each vendor and the vendor's applications. The RFP requested references that had completed implementation within the last year along with any other references the vendor felt would provide additional insight into the vendor. As referenced in the RFP, the Selection Committee evaluated not only the references provided by each vendor in their RFP response, but any other source that we felt had valuable information concerning the selection process. Neither vendor provided a reference that met the criteria of completing implementation within the last year. When the Selection Committee contacted each vendor's references in this area, either the agency was not using the application for operations or we were unable to get in contact with the reference provided The additional references were very complementary of the respective vendor. The advantage in this area was given to Escom because of the number of satisfied customers the Selection Committee spoke with during these reference checks. ♦ Cost- SRI The cost evaluation included application software, hardware, third party software, implementation assistance, and training costs. Based on the costs submitted with the RFP responses and our subsequent review of those costs with each vendor, SRI had a lower overall cost as well as a lower recurring maintenance cost. Based on the evaluation given above, the Selection Committee recommends Escom Software Services Ltd. to provide the Parks and Recreation System for the City of Kent. �w». ...... . ............ "q Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 ��� Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TCI MERGER WITH AT&T - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Passage of Resolution No. approving the proposed merger of TCI and AT&T subject to certain conditions, specifically the AT&T agreement that all its cable operations purchased from TCI within the City of Kent will remain subject to the City' s Franchise Agreement, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS : Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . 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. 6J • s To: Operations Committee Date: November 24, 1998 From: Dea Drake,Multimedia Manager Tom Brubaker,Assistant City Attorney Subject: TCl/AT&T Merger Transfer BACKGROUND On September 1, 1998 the City received a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) form from TCI requesting action on a proposed TCl/AT&T merger. Under this proposed merger, our franchise agreement would be with AT&T as the parent company of TCI, but TCI will continue to exist as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. Our ability to approve or regulate this merger, or AT&T/TCI's operations under our franchise is significantly limited by federal law. However, we have attempted to preserve the City's franchise interests by adding some conditions to acceptance under this resolution. We will have a brief staff presentation and be available for questions. The City of Kent has 120 days from the date of the letter to take action. Failure to act is considered the same as consent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the merger and has enclosed a draft resolution. This resolution has been reviewed by TCI, the City Attorney's Office and our Cable Consultant. Materials enclosed: 1) Cover letter from TCI 2) Draft resolution RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Operations Committee recommend passage of the attached resolution approving the proposed merger of TCI and AT&T subject to certain conditions, specifically including AT&T agreement that all its cable operations purchased from TCI, within the City of Kent, will remain subject to the City's Franchise Agreements. SEP ' 1 1998 D T C I CITY GF KENT CITY CLERK September 1, 1998 City of Kent 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent,WA 98032 Atm: City Clerk Re: TC I Merger with AT&T Request for Consent to Change of Control As I informed you in previous correspondence, Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI), the ultimate parent corporation of your cable franchise, has announced its intention to merge with AT&T. We are writing to provide you with additional information regarding this matter, and to formally request any consent that may be required by the franchise or applicable law. Both TCI and AT&T are excited about the merger, which we believe will have significant benefits to our customers. With the combined expertise and initiative of TCI and AT&T, we hope to offer an expanded choice of products and services to our customers. Under the terms of the merger agreement, AT&T will become the parent company of TCL TCI will continue to exist as a corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. All of the cable television franchises held by TCI entities will continue to be held by those entities. Our records indicate that our franchise with you may require that we obtain your consent to this change of control. The merger will not involve a transfer of the franchise. The current cable franchisee will continue to hold the franchise, and local management and employees of TCI will remain in place. The merger will, however, result in a new parent company for TCI and indirectly, for your cable franchise. To provide you with all information necessary to grant the consent we seek, we are including three copies of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) Form 394. According to the FCC, the Form 394 is designed to provide a franchise authority with the information necessary to assess the financial, legal and technical qualifications of the proposed new controlling entity. As part of that Form, you are receiving a copy of the merger agreement, AT&T's Annual Report for 1997, and any specific additional information required by the franchise in connection with a change of control of TCL TCI of Washington.Inc. Auburn Office 4020 Aubum Way N. Aubum,WA 96002 (253)833-9675 FAX(253)939-6235 Under the FCC's rules, you have 120 days from the date you receive this information to review it and to act upon our request for consent to the merger. Should you choose not to take any action within this 120 days, under federal law your consent will be deemed granted. For your convenience and consideration, we have also enclosed a draft resolution which addresses your consent to merger. We respectfully request that this resolution be placed on the agenda for your next meeting. I am available to discuss any questions you have about this resolution or any of the other enclosed documents at your convenience. As always, if at any time you have any questions or concerns about the merger, please feel free to call me at (253) 833-9675 or Janet Turpen, Regional Director of Franchising at (425) 462-2799. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. By: Daniel Hayn s_- Business Operations Manager Enclosure cc: Division Franchising Department Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants Receipt on this day of September, 1998,of this letter and the FCC Form 394, including attachments, is hereby acknowledged. BY: N T=: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KENT APPROVING THE CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE WHEREAS, TCI of Washington, Inc. ("Franchisee") is duly authorized by the City of Kent (the "Franchisee Authority") to operate and maintain a cable communications system ("the System") in Kent, Washington pursuant to a franchise granted by the Franchise Authority under Ordinance No. 3108 ("the Franchisee"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Restructuring and Merger among AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T ("Merger Sub"), and Tele-Communications, Inc., the parent of Franchisee ("TCP'), dated as of June 23, 1998 (the "Merger Agreement"), Merger Sub will merge with and into TCI with TCI as the surviving corporation in the merger, and as a result of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, TCI will become a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T (the "Transactions"); and WHEREAS, Franchisee will continue to hold and be bound by all terms and conditions of the Franchise after consummation of the Transactions; and WHEREAS, FCC Form 394 with respect to the Transactions has been filed with the Franchise Authority; and WHEREAS, the parties have requested consent by the Franchise Authority to the Transactions. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to and approves the Transactions under the terms of the Master Cable Television Ordinance #3107 (Kent City Code Section 7.12.110) and the Franchise and applicable law, provided that: A) TCI, as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, confirms that the Franchisee will continue to be bound by the terms of the Master Cable Television _ Ordinance No. 3107, and the Franchise, and any amendments thereto; and B) In accordance with Exhibit 4 of the FCC Form 394, if, in the future, AT&T offers services other than those currently authorized by the Franchise and any applicable laws, AT&T will obtain any necessary federal, state or local authorization prior to the introduction of such services over Franchisee"s System. Implicit in this statement is the obligation to pay to the Franchise Authority any fees, taxes or other assessments as may lawfully be levied. Specifically should AT &T at any time lease any portion of their system to other entities providing such services as Internet Access or other data transmission then these revenues will additionally be included in the calculation of gross revenues; and C) The final merger agreement consummated by the parties and approved by the federal government shall not contain any material changes from the facts submitted in Franchisee's request for consent to the change of = control submitted to the Franchise Authority. If material changes are made then the City shall require a resubmission of the facts and revised FCC Form 394. SECTION 2. This Resolution shall be deemed effective in accordance with applicable law. PASSED,ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1998. By: ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, approving the change of control of the cable communications franchise. WHEREAS, TCI of Washington, Inc. ("Franchisee") is duly authorized by the City of Kent (the "Franchisee Authority") to operate and maintain a cable communications system ("the System") in Kent, Washington pursuant to a franchise granted by the Franchise Authority under Ordinance No. 3108 ("the Franchise'; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Restructuring.and Merger among AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), a newly formed wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T ("Merger Sub"), and Tele-Communications, Inc., the parent of Franchisee ("TCI"), dated as of June 23, 1998 (the "Merger Agreement', Merger Sub will merge with and into TCI with TCI as the surviving corporation in the merger, and as a result of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, TCI will become a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T (the "Transactions"); and WHEREAS, Franchisee will continue to hold and be bound by all terms and conditions of the Franchise after consummation of the Transactions; and WHEREAS, FCC Form 394 with respect to the Transactions has been filed with the Franchise Authority; and WHEREAS, the parties have requested consent by the Franchise Authority to the Transactions;NOW THEREFORE, 1 TCI/AT&T Merger THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to and approves the Transactions under the terms of the Master Cable Television Ordinance #3107 (Kent City Code Section 7.12.110) and the Franchise and applicable law, provided that: A. TCI, as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, confirms that as Franchisee, it will continue to be bound by the terms of the Master Cable Television Ordinance No. 3107, and the Franchise, and any amendments thereto; and B. In accordance with Exhibit 4 of the FCC Form 394, if, in the future, AT&T offers services other than those currently authorized by the Franchise and any applicable laws, AT&T will obtain any necessary federal, state or local authorization prior to the introduction of such services over Franchisee's System. Implicit in this statement is the obligation to pay to the Franchise Authority any fees, taxes or other assessments as may lawfully be levied. Specifically should Franchisee, at any time lease any portion of the system to other entities providing such services as Internet Access or other data transmission then, in accordance with the Franchise, these lease payment revenues will be included in the calculation of gross revenues; and C. The final merger agreement consummated by the parties and approved by the federal government shall not contain any material changes from the facts submitted in Franchisee's request for consent to the change of control submitted to the Franchise Authority. If material changes are made then the City shall require a resubmission of the facts and revised FCC Form 394. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTIONS. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. 2 TCI/AT&T Merger SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this day of , 1998. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 11998. JIM WHITE,MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 11998. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\LAMRm1udon\TCI AT&T mwgc.doc 3 TCI/AT&T Merger Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LODGING TAX - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. levying a special excise tax of one percent (1%) for lodging for the purpose of paying all or part of the cost of tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . 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. 6K ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, levying a special excise tax of one percent (1%) on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging by any hotel, motel, rooming house, tourist court, or trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property; and establishing a special fund for the tax for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities, or operation of tourism-related facilities or other uses as authorized in Chapter 67.28 RCW. WHEREAS, RCW 67.28.181 provides that municipalities such as the City " of Kent are authorized to levy and collect a special excise tax on the sale or charge made for the furnishing of lodging that is subject to tax under Chapter 82.08 RCW; and WHEREAS, the City of Kent has established a Lodging Tax Advisory Committee pursuant to RCW 67.28.1817, which committee has met and recommended the imposition of a one percent (1%) lodging tax; and WHEREAS, such tax shall be levied only to pay all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, or acquisition of or operation of a tourism facility or other activities permitted under Chapter 67.28;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 Lodging Tax SECTION 1. A new chapter, Chapter 3.23 entitled "Lodging Tax," is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: Chapter 3.23 Lodging Tag Sec. 3.23.010. Definitions. The definitions of the terms "selling price," "seller," "buyer," "consumer," and all other definitions set forth in RCW 82.08.010 and the definition of"sale at retail," and "retail sale" set forth in RCW 82.04.050 as currently enacted or hereinafter amended are hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein. The definitions of the terms "acquisition," "municipality," "operation," "person," "tourism,""tourism promotion,""tourism-related facility"and"tourist" set forth in RCW 67.28.080 as currently enacted or hereinafter amended are hereby adopted by reference as if fully set forth herein. Sec. 3.23.020. Levied -- Amount. Effective February 1, 1999, there is hereby levied, as authorized by RCW 67.28.181, a special excise tax of one percent(1%) on the sale of or charge made for the famishing of lodging that is subject to tax under Ch. 82.08 RCW. Pursuant to RCW 82.08.010 and 82.04.050(1)(0,the tax imposed applies to the sale of or charge for the furnishing of lodging by a hotel, rooming house, tourist court, motel, or trailer camp, and the granting of any similar license to use real property, as distinguished from the renting or leasing of real property. It shall be presumed that the occupancy of real property for a continuous period of one month or more constitutes a rental or lease of real property and not a mere license to use and enjoy the same. Sec. 3.23.030. Tag deemed in addition to license fees or other taxes. The tax levied in this chapter shall be in addition to any license fee or any other tax imposed or levied under any law or any other ordinance of the City. Sec. 3.23.040. Fund created -- Use of funds. There is created a special fund in the treasury of the City and all taxes collected under this chapter shall be placed in this special fund to be used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, or acquisition of or operation of tourism-related facilities or to pay for other 2 Lodging Tax uses as authorized in Ch. 67.28 RCW, as now permitted or hereafter amended. Until withdrawn for use,the monies accumulated in such fund may be invested by the City in any manner authorized by law. Sec.3.23.050. Collection and administration. The Washington State Department of Revenue is designated and shall act as an agent of the City for purposes of collection and administration of the tax in the manner provided by and consistent with State law. SECTION Z - Severabilitv. 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. SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be i force five (5) days from and after the date of its publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 Lodging Tax PASSED: day of 1998. APPROVED: day of , 1998. PUBLISHED: day of , 1998. 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:V.AW,0FWT.NANC mdw tmord.o 4 Lodging Tax Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TENANT/FACILITY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approve and authorize tenant improvement budgets totaling $1, 291, 000 with "intent to bond" and reimburse expenditures in Spring of 1999, for Centennial, City Hall and other City facilities, as recommended by the Operations Committee on December 1, 1998 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director and worksheet 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6L DATE: November 24, 1998 TO: Mayor White and Councilmembers FROM: May Miller, Director of Finance SUBJECT: TENANT/FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS —CITY FACILITIES Last year's budget approved tenant improvements at city facilities as part of the 1998-2003 Capital Plan. These renovations, primarily to Centennial and City Hall, were to be funded with Councilmanic bonds in 1998 and 1999. We have been waiting to issue bonds until the East Hill land was approved so we could proceed with one bond issue to save duplication in bond issuance cost. The purchase and sale agreement for this land has been entered into with final approval pending environmental studies and council approval. This is expected some time in January 1999. Meanwhile, we need to proceed on the space improvements to accommodate over crowding by some city departments,which include: • Centennial renovations of planned vacant space primarily on the 2nd and 3rd floor to accommodate some of Information Service, Parks, Engineering, and/or other departments. • City hall renovations to 3rd and 4th floors of City Hall to primarily accommodate Employee Services and Finance departments. • Renovation of the former Municipal Court building for Fire Prevention. • Renovation of Fire Station 74 and Kent Memorial Park building. • Phase II Russell Road irrigation of non-ballfield areas of the park. These renovations, except for Russell Road, are short term solutions expected to relieve the most crowded departments for the next few years or provide necessary improvements. A request for the planning and other items necessary to get to a more long term solution will be presented to Council during January or February 1999. To move ahead, we need Council's authorization to establish budgets of$1,291,000 for tenant improvements. Per Dick King's attached memo, we also need to declare "intent to bond"for these projects to reimburse any preliminary expenditures before bonds are issued next Spring. COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize tenant improvement budgets of$1,291,000 with "intent to bond" and reimburse expenditures in Spring of 1999. LEHMAN BROTHERS MEMORANDUM To: May Miller FROM: Richard B. King DATE: January 21, 1998 SUBJECT: Reimbursement Financings As we discussed this morning, May, there are several requirements to qualify the repayment of previous capital expenditures with bond proceeds to be eligible for tax exempt financing: 1. The City must declare `official intent" to reimburse the expenditure with bond proceeds, which declaration must be publicly available and "reasonable"--consistent with budgetary and financial circumstances Wd the City must reasonably expect to make the reimbursement The City, in other words, specifically may not pass official intent resolutions for every expenditure and then selectively issue bonds to reimburse itself. 2. The expenditure to be reimbursed must be a true capital expenditure; the City may not reimburse itself for working capital expenditures. I The City must issue the reimbursement bonds and make the reimbursement allocation (i) within 18 months after the expenditure initially was made or(ii), if later than 18 months after the initial expenditure, within 18 months after the date on which property acquired/resulting from the expenditure was placed in service, but (iii) in any case not later than three years after the initial expenditure. I hope this is helpful. Please call me with any questions. Proposed Councilmanic Bond Issues Original Project Request Recommended Comments Tenant Improvements: City Hall 150,000 100,000 Provides tenant improvements on the third and fourth floors including construction and furniture costs. Centennial 312,000 512,000 * Provides tenant improvements for Development (Delevopment Services/Fire Services;an Information Services Training Center, Prevention&2nd Floor TI's Automation Project offices;Information Services City Department) Data/Telephone closets;Public Works;and relocating a City department into vacant space,including construction and furniture costs. Kent Memorial Park 150,000 150,000 Provides building renovations to meet current standards for utilization,safety and building systems. Fire Prevention/Old Court 150,000 100,000 Provides tenant improvements for Fire Prevention. Station 74-Phase I1 Repairs 94,000 99,000 Provides building renovations to Station 74. 856,000 961,000 Contingency(15916) 145,000 Subtotal 856,000 1,106,000 Other Improvements: Russell Road Park Irrigation 170,000 185,000 Irrigation for non-ballfield areas of park. Subtotal 170,000 185,000 6lt2c+W ASPk3l{owft�lo.cj Total 1,026,000 1,291,000 * Includes the addition of Automation Project offices,Info Services Data/Telephone closets and Public Works improvements. Sondschd.xls 11/25/98 ............. .. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 1998 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their December 1, 1998 meeting, adoption of Ordinance No. for the July to December 1998 budget adjustments totaling $16, 729, 927 , approval of a line of credit up to $200, 000 to cover housing and community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County and a line of credit up to $250, 000 to the Riverbend Golf Complex as approved by Council on November 3, 1998 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director, ordinance and technical worksheets 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6M Date: December 2, 1998 To: Operations Committee From: Mayene Miller, Finance Division Director h Ordinance for Adjustments after Jul 1 Subject: Budget Adjustment O � y , 1998 Authorization is requested to approve the gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling $16,729,927 for budget adjustments made after July 1, 1998. This ordinance is primarily a housekeeping adjustment, consolidating individual budget items into one adjusting ordinance. Please note that $15,656,929 has been previously approved by Council. Of this amount, $1,148,068 was approved in prior years or other funds and primarily establishes carryover budgets for various capital projects and to budget SEPA mitigation monies received for various street and utility capital projects. The remaining $14,508,861 was approved by Council this year and is essentially for tenant improvements; capital projects; public safety programs; and payment of the Saturday Market debt. The balance of$572,998 has not been previously approved by Council, but needs to be approved to be in compliance with the State auditor's requirements. Changes to the budget total $522,998, with $645,000 to adjust self insurance budgets to the current claims level using fund balance. These claims are primarily for health insurance, but also workers compensation and property damage. Also included is $41,000 to cover the Golf management contract fees for merchandise sales over the budgeted amount. These amounts are offset by $163,002,primarily to reduce operating projects due to grants not awarded. Budget corrections of$50,000 are essentially to correct capital projects and re-allocate overhead charges. The attached summary shows the carryover budgets by fund, the 1998 budget adopted by ordinance 43384, mid-year budget adjustments adopted by ordinance 43416, the adjustments being requested and the total operating and capital budgets. The following pages show a detailed listing of these adjustments by fund, including council authorization dates for the amounts previously approved. In addition to the budget adjustments, the annual line of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000 is needed for housing and community development funds to cover year-end expenditures until they are reimbursed by King County. Council Action: Approve the budget adjustment ordinance for adjustments made from July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 totaling $16,729,927. Approve a line of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to cover housing and community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County. City of Kent Budget Adjustment Ordinance Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Additional Appropriations Adjustment Carryover Ordinance Ordinance Adjustment Total Fund Budget #3384 #3416 Ordinance Budget 001 General Fund 50,765,191 251,429 179,499 51,196,119 110 Street Fund 4,974,947 390,213 5,365,160 140 Youth/Teen Programs 751,000 751,000 150 Capital Improvement 5,509,938 465,400 272,778 6,248,116 160 Criminal Justice 1,928,506 2,256,200 34,701 638,406 4,857,813 170 Environmental Mitigation 11,600 454,929 182,414 648,943 180 Housing&Community Development 762,095 523,966 1,286,061 190 Other Operating Projects 1,715,265 219,555 60,000 (143,000) 1,851,820 211 Voted Debt Service 1,834,090 1,834,090 212 Councilmanic Debt Service 2,679,389 524,778 3,204,167 250 Special Assessment 2,363,188 2,363,188 310 Street Capital Projects 40,457,689 3,678,609 28,698,910 6,426,704 79,261,912 320 Parks Capital Projects 13,973,334 2,268,062 711,058 (498,555) 16,453,899 330 Other Capital Projects 1,512,213 343,000 (5,999) (212,428) 1,638,786 410 Water 15,343,839 12,857,912 846,453 16,643 29,064,847 440 Sewerage 21,776,965 23,869,329 3,661,733 7,204,075 56,512,102 480 Golf Complex 253,000 3,737,063 51 (97,305) 3,892,809 510 Fleet Services 142,000 2,314,874 73,280 60,824 2,590,978 520 Central Services 1,492,000 4,646,086 192,000 (39,080) 6,291,006 530 Fire Equipment Fund 66,853 20,000 155,393 242,246 540 Facilities Fund 629,840 5,706,061 511,755 1,205,956 8,053,612 560 Insurance 5,972,939 645,000 6,617,939 620 Firemen's Relief&Pension 209,330 209,330 680 Economic Development 10,433 26 10,459 Total Gross Budget 99,998,346 138,012,944 35,703,185 16,729,927 290,444,402 Less: Internal Service Funds 14,215,734 161,040 2,194 14,378,968 Other Transfers 241,234 12,686,969 637,798 666,197 14,232,198 Internal Transfers 9,067,401 10,218,872 352,323 423,572 20,062,168 Total Net Budget 90,689,711 100,891,369 34,552,024 15,637,964 241,771,068 BE 98ADJORD2.xls 1212M City of Kent, Washington 1998 Combined Operating Statement Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance General Fund 47,578,995 51,016,620 (3,437,625) 8,537,970 5,100,345 Approved by Council-Current Year 230,805 179,499 51,306 51,306 47,809,800 51,196,119 (3,386,319) 8,537,970 5,151,651 Special Revenue Funds Street 4,538,268 4,974,947 (436,679) 1,072,816 636,137 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 390,000 (390,000) (390,000) Other Changes 213 (213) (213) 4,538,268 5,365,160 (826,892) 1,072,816 245,924 Youth/Teen Programs 496,849 751,000 (254,151) 610,636 356,485 Capital Improvement 5,322,080 5,975,338 (653,258) 1,936,076 1,282,818 Approved by Council-Current Year 272,778 (272,778) (272,778) 5,322,080 6,248,116 (926,036) 1,936,075 1,010,040 Criminal Justice 2,108,516 2,198,901 (90,385) 722,856 632,471 Approved by Council-Current Year 615,835 613,406 2,429 2,429 Budget Correction 25,000 (25,000) (25,000) 2,724.351 2,837,307 (112,956) 722,856 609,900 Environmental Mitigation 548,548 637,343 (88,795) 153,232 64,437 Community Block Grant 523,966 523,966 Other Operating Projects 279,555 279,555 2,858 2,858 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 15,000 15,000 Approved by Council-Current Year 28,000 28,000 Other Changes (107,000) (107,000) 215,555 215,555 2,858 2,858 Debt Service Funds Voted 1,834,090 1,834,090 61,071 61,071 Councilmanic 2,679,389 2,679,389 225 225 Approved by Council-Current Year 524,778 524,778 3,204,167 3,204,167 225 225 Special Assessment 2,302,225 2,333,188 (30,963) 1,764,153 1,733,190 Capital Projects Funds Street Projects 32,304,419 32,377,519 (73,100) 98,232 25,132 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 576,362 576,362 Approved by Council-Current Year 5,850,129 5,850,129 Other Changes 213 213 38,731,123 38,804,223 (73,100) 98,232 25,132 Parks Projects 2,731,632 2,716,797 14,835 197,569 212,404 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 91,705 91,706 Approved by Council-Current Year (590,261) (590,261) 2,233,077 2,218,242 14,835 197,569 212,404 BE 9BADJORD2.xls 12f2M City of Kent,Washington 1998 Combined Operating Statement Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance Other Projects 340,000 337,001 2,999 (2,999) Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund (45.000) (45,000) Approved by Council-Current Year (170,000) (170,000) 125,000 122,001 2,999 (2,999) Enterprise Funds Water 7,225,310 9,855,527 (2,629,217) 6,046,194 3,416,977 Budget Correction 16,643 (16,643) (16,643) 7,226,310 9,872,170 (2,645,860) 6,046,194 3,400,334 Sewerage 18,910,963 23,063,675 (4,152,712) 8,705,920 4,553,208 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 106,000 106,000 Approved by Council-Current Year 6,077,359 6,577,359 (500,000) (500,000) Budget Correction 20,716 (20,716) (20,716) 25,094,322 29,767,750 (4,673,428) 8,705,920 4,032,492 Golf Complex 3,196,300 3,134,901 61,399 (543,538) (482,139) Approved by Council-Current Year (140,000) 140,000 140,000 Budget Correction 1,695 (1,695) (1,695) Other Changes 41,000 41,000 3,237,300 3,037,596 199,704 (543,538) (343,834) Internal Service Funds Equipment Rental 2,754,719 2,388,154 366,565 2,566,221 2,932,786 Approved by Council-Current Year 7,500 40,824 (33,324) (33,324) Other Changes 20,000 (20,000) (20,000) 2.762,219 2,448,978 313,241 2,566,221 2,879,462 Central Services 4,666,681 4,658,086 8,595 55,084 63,679 Budget Correction (39,080) 39,080 39,080 4,666,681 4,619,006 47,675 55,084 1OZ759 Fire Equipment 451,348 86,853 364,495 623,478 987,973 Approved by Council-Current Year 35,000 155,393 (120,393) (120,393) 486,348 242,246 244,102 623,478 867,580 Facilities 4,730,132 5,129,382 (399,250) 326,114 (73,136) Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 14,000 14,000 Approved by Council-CurrentYear 1,108,194 1,166,956 (58,762) (58,762) Budget Correction 25,000 25,000 5,877,326 6,335,338 (458,012) 325,114 (131,898) Insurance 5,740,796 5,972,939 (232,143) 3,617,958 3,385,815 Other Changes 50.000 645,000 (595,000) (595,000) 5,790,796 6,617,939 (827,143) 3,617,958 2,790,815 Trust and Agency Funds Firemen's Pension 189,310 209,330 (20,020) 3,149,330 3,129,310 Economic Development 13,935 10,433 3,502 20,467 Z3,969 Budget Correction 26 (26) (26) 13,935 10,459 3,476 20,467 23,943 BE MADJORD2.xls 12l2/98 City of Kent, Washington 1998 Combined Operating Statement Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance Beginning Gross Budget 151,469,026 163,144,934 (11,675,908) 39,721,923 28,046,015 Approved by Council-Prior Year/Other Fund 758,068 1,148,068 (390,000) (390,000) Approved by Council-Current Year 13,717,339 14,508,861 (791,522) (791,522) Budget Correction 25,000 50,000 (25,000) (25,000) Other Changes (15,787) 599,426 (615,213) (615,213) New Gross Budget 165,953,646 179,451,289 (13,497,643) 39,721,923 26,224,280 Less: Internal Service Funds 14,378,968 14,378,968 Other Transfers 13,990,964 13,990,964 Total Budget 137,583,714 151,081,357 (13,497,643) 39,721,923 26,224,280 BE 9BADJORD2.xls 122M City of Kent General Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 50,765,191 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 251,429 51,016,620 Budget Adjusbnent Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Transfer Out-Fleet Services for Park Mtc.Equipment 7/7/98 7,500 Assistant Fire Marshall 7/21/98 39,000 Fire Capital Outlay-Amkus Rescue Tool 7/21/98 1,200 Combination Building Inspector 8/4/98 70,400 Youthrreen Working Training TPT Salaries 8/4/98 12,380 Arts Commission Services 8!4/98 6,625 Youthrreen Leadership Program 9/1/98 200 Senior Center Equipment/Trips 11/3/98 40,000 Property Lease Allocation 2/3/98,7121/98 2,194 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 179,499 Total Expenditures 51,196,119 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 47,559,258 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 19,737 Beginning Fund Balance 8,537,970 Ending Fund Balance (5,100,345) 51,016,620 Budget Adjustment Sources Fire District#37 Revenues 100,000 Washington State Grants 1,200 Building Permits-Commercial 25,848 Building Permits-Residential 14,722 Plumbing Permits 4,374 Mechanical Permits 3,230 Plan Check Fees 22,226 King County Work Training Grant 12,380 King County Arts Commission Grant 6,625 King County Community Service 200 Senior Center-kitchen rental fees 40,E Ending Working Capital (51,306) Total Budget Adjustment Sources 179,499 Total Sources of Funding 51,196,119 BE MADJORD2 As 1212M City of Kent Street Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,974,947 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 4,974,947 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Period or Other Fund 1997 Carryover-Trf Out-Canyon Drive Bike Lanes/Pedestrian 1997 390,000 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Transfer Out-Misc Street Equipment (1) 213 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 390,213 Total Expenditures 5,36®s Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,538,268 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 1,072,816 Ending Fund Balance (636,137) 4,974,947 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital 390,213 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 390,213 Total Sources of Funding 5,365,160 (1) Transfer adjustment needed to balance and close street equipment project. BE 99ADJORD2.xls 12l2/98 City of Kent Youth /Teen Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 751,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 751,000 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 751,000 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 496,849 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 610,636 Ending Fund Balance (356,485) 751,000 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 751,000 BE 98ADJORD2.xis 12r2198 City of Kent Capital Improvement Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 5,5D9,938 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 465,400 5,975,338 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Transfer Out-Debt Service (Saturday Market Debt) 717/98 132,778 Transfer Out-Debt Service (Golf Debt) 11/3/98 140,000 Total Budget Adjustrnent Expenditures 272,778 Total Expenditures 6,248,116 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 5,322,080 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 1,936,076 Ending Fund Balance (1,282,818) 5,975,338 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital 272,778 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 272,778 Total Sources of Funding 6,248,116 BE 99ADJORD2.xls 12J2M City of Kent Criminal Justice Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,254,200 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 34,701 Carryover Budget 1,928,506 Internal Transfers 2,000 4,219,407 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Drinking Driver Task Force 7121/98 (303) South King County Narcotics Task Force 7/21/98 548,783 LEEP Grant 98/99 7/21198 30,000 Boating Safety Program 11/3/98 34,946 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Budget Correction-Trf Out-Drug Evidence Ventillation (1) 25,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 638,406 Total Expenditures 4,867,813 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,073,815 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 34,701 Carryover Budget 1,928,506 Internal Transfers 92,000 Beginning Fund Balance 722,856 Ending Fund Balance (63Z471) 4,219,407 Budget Adjustment Sources WA Traffic Safety Commission Grant 2,126 DCTED Grant 264,782 Seized Assets 157,981 Contributions from participating cities 126,000 Law Enforcement Education Partnership Grant 30,000 Vessel Registration Fees 34,946 Ending Working Capital 22,571 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 638,406 Total Sources of Funding 4,857,813 (1) This project was approved in the 1998 Capital Facilities Plan with Police seized asset funding,but was inadvertently missed in the 1998 budget. BE 98ADJORD2.xls 12r2t98 City of Kent Environmental Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 454.929 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 182,414 Carryover Budget 11,600 648,943 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Previously Approved with Council Date Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 648,943 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 366,134 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 182.414 Carryover Budget 11,600 Beginning Fund Balance 153,232 Ending Fund Balance (64,437) 648,943 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 648,943 BE 98ADJORD2.xis t2f M City of Kent Housing & Community Development Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 523,966 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Carryover Budget 762,095 1,286,061 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 1,286,061 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 523,966 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Carryover Budget 762,095 1,286,061 Budget Adjusbnent Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 1,286,061 BE 9aAMORo2.xis 12098 City of Kent Environmental Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 454,929 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 182,414 Carryover Budget 11,600 648,943 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Previously Approved with Council Date Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 648,943 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 366,134 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 182,414 Carryover Budget 11,600 Beginning Fund Balance 153,232 Ending Fund Balance (64,437) 648,943 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 648.943 BE MADJORD2.xls 12/2M City of Kent Other Operating Projects Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 219,555 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 60,000 Carryover Budget 1,715,265 1,994,820 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved by Council-Prior Period or Other Fund Performing Arts Center(staff/consulting services) 15,000 Previously Approved with Council Date Shoreline Master Program 7f7/98 23,000 Senior Center Blood Pressure Program 10/20/98 5,000 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Metro Bus/Driver-delete project (1) (66,000) Bus Stop Improvements-delete project (1) (120,000) Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (143.000) Total Expenditures 1,851,820 Sources of Funding - Budget Ordinance No.3384 219,555 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 60,000 Carryover Budget 1,715,265 Beginning Fund Balance 2,858 Ending Fund Balance (2,8513) 1,994,820 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-Misc Unallocated Projects 15,000 Department of Ecology Grant 23,000 Contributions-Safeco 5,000 Washington State Grants-not awarded (107,000) Transfer In-In City Transit (79,000) Total Budget Adjustment Sources (143,000) Total Sources of Funding 1,851,820 (1) The Metro Bus/Driver and Bus Stop Improvement projects were deleted because we were not awarded the grants necessary to complete the projects and the underlying transit problems are being addressed in other ways. The City's match amount was returned to the In-City Transit project and will be used on other transit related projects. BE 99ADJORD2.xls 12nM City of Kent Voted Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 1,834,090 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 1,834,090 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 1,834,090 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 1,834,090 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 61,071 Ending Fund Balance (61,071) 1,834,090 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 1,834,090 BE 98AC)JOR02.xls 12rIJ98 City of Kent Councilmanic Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,679,389 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 2,679,389 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Saturday Market Payoff 717198 524,778 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 524,778 Total Expenditures 3,204,167 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,679,389 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 225 Ending Fund Balance (225) 2,679,389 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-CIP 524,778 Total Budget Adjusment Sources 524,�8 Total Sources of Funding 3,204,167 BE 9BADJOR02.xls 12/N98 City of Kent Special Assessments Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,333,188 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Internal Transfers 30,000 2,363,188 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 2,363,188 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,302,225 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Internal Transfers 30,000 Beginning Fund Balance 1,764,153 Ending Fund Balance (1,733,190) 2,363,188 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 2,363,188 BE 99ADJORD2.xls 12098 - City of Kent Street Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 3,678,609 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 28,69,8,910 Carryover Budget 40,457,689 72,835,208 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Period or Other Fund Lid 329-Traffic Signal at 74th Ave 8 SR 516 515/87 182,325 SEPA Mitigation-224th-228th Corridor ORD#2494 62,249 SEPA Mitigation-Asphalt Overlays ORD#2494 35,906 SEPA Mitigation-256th Street Widening ORD#2494 56,759 SEPA Mitigation-272nd Corridor ORD#2494 228,309 SEPA Mitigation-Highway 99 HOV Lanes ORD#2494 654 SEPA Mitigation-Pedestrian Walkways ORD#2494 7,960 SEPA Mitigation-Canyon Drive Intersection Improvements ORD#2494 2,200 Previously Approved with Council Date 196th Corridor-west leg 6/16,8/4,11/3 4,193,078 James Street Improvements 6/16M 174,000 Sidewalks 6/16/98 100,000 196th Corridor-middle leg 11/17/98 1,293,051 Freight Mobility System Improvement Study 12/8/98 90,000 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Misc Street Equipment (1) 213 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 6,426,704 Total Expenditures 79,261,912 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 3,678,609 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 28,625,810 Carryover Budget 40,457,689 Beginning Fund Balance 98,232 Ending Fund Balance (25.132) 72,835,208 Budget Adjustment Sources LID Bonds 182,325 SEPA Contributions 394,037 Kng County Supplemental Grant 1,791,153 TIB Grant 3,968,976 DOT Grant 90.000 Transfer In-Street Fund 213 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 6,426,704 Total Sources of Funding 79,261,912 (1) Adjustment needed to balance and close street equipment project. BE WADJOR02.xls 12r2MS City of Kent Parks Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,268,062 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 711,058 Carryover Budget 13,973,334 16,952,454 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Greenview Park (1) 36,706 Light Pole Replacements (1) 45,000 Yangzhou Park (1) 10,000 Previously Approved with Council Date Salt Aire Hills Park Development 777/98 (222,000) Delete Saturday Market Payoff Budget 7/7/98 (600,000) Playground Safety-Meridian Glen 8/4/98 1,489 Playground Safety 10/20/98 45,000 Adopta-Park 11/3/98 250 Russell Road Park Irrigation 12/8/98 185,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (498,555) Total Expenditures 16,453,899 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,303,139 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 690,816 Carryover Budget 13,973,334 Beginning Fund Balance 197,569 Ending Fund Balance (212,404) 16,952,454 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-Miscellaneous Projects 46,706 Transfer In-CIP (177,000) Proceeds from Councilmanic Bonds (415,000) Kent Rotary Donation 1,489 Sale of Land-Jean Austin property 45,000 Contributions 250 Total Budget Adjustment Sources (498,556) Total Sources of Funding 16,453,899 (1) Move previously approved project budgets to Parks projects. BE MADJOR02.xls 12r2M City of Kent Other Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 343,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 (5,999) Carryover Budget 1,512,213 1,849,214 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Misc Unallocated Projects (1) (84.000) Transfer Out-Performing Arts Center (1) 15,000 Transfer Out-Facilities Maintenance (1) 14,000 Transfer Out-YangzhouPark (1) 10,000 Previously Approved with Council Date Transfer Out-Fire Equipment Fund 3/17/98 35,000 Foam Trailer Replacement 3117/98 (35,000) Downtown Gateway Parks W7/98 (170,000) Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Corrections Office Remodel (2) 2,572 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (212,428) Total Expenditures 1,636,786 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 343,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 (5,999) Carryover Budget 1.512,213 Beginning Fund Balance (2,999) Ending Fund Balance 2,999 1,849,214 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-CIP (215,000) Transfer In-Police MDT Sale 2,572 Total Budget Adjustment Sources (212,428) Total Sources of Funding 1,636.786 (1) Move previously approved project budgets to Parks and Facilities projects. (2) Adjustment needed to balance and close project. BE 98ADJORD2.xls 1W2J98 City of Kent Water Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 9,009,074 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 846,453 Carryover Budget 15,343,839 Internal Transfers 3,848,838 29,048,204 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Budget Correction-Reallocate overhead charged to Central Stores (1) 16,643 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 16,643 Total Expenditures 29,064,847 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 7,228,310 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Carryover Budget 15,343,839 Internal Transfers 3,848,838 Beginning Fund Balance 6,046,194 Ending Fund Balance (3,416,977) 29,048,204 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital 16,643 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 16,643 Total Sources of Funding 29,064,847 (1) Correct overhead allocations. BE 98AMORMAs 17f M City of Kent Sewerage Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 19,401,942 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 3,661,733 Carryover Budget 21,776,965 Internal Transfers 4,467,387 49,308,027 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds SEPA Mitigation-Soos Creek Drainage Basin ORD#2494 41,000 SEPA Mitigation-Mill Creek Drainage ORD#2494 65,000 Previously Approved with Council Date 277th Metro Sanitary Sewer 6/2198 6,577,359 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Budget Correction-Reallocate overhead charged to Central Stores (1) 20,716 Internal Transfer Internal Transfer Out-277th Metro Sanitary Sewer 6/2198 500,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 7,204,075 Total Expenditures 56,512,102 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 18,898,958 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 12,005 Carryover Budget 21,776,965 Internal Transfers 4,467,387 Beginning Fund Balance 8,705,920 Ending Fund Balance (4,553,208) 49,308,027 Budget Adjustment Sources SEPA Contributions 106,000 Internal Transfer In-Sewerage Operating 1,000,000 King County/Metro Agreement 6,077,359 Ending Working Capital 520,716 Internal Transfer Transfer In-Sewerage Operating (500,DDO) Total Budget Adjustment Sources 7,204,075 Total Sources of Funding 58 51 (1) Correct overhead allocations. BE 98AOJORD2.xls 12/Z98 City of Kent Golf Course Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 3,134,850 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 51 Carryover Budget 253,000 Internal Transfers 602,213 3,990,114 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Transfer Out-Debt Service Fund 11/3/9B (140,000) Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Budget Correction-Reallocate overhead charged to Central Stores (1) 1,695 Management Fees (2) 41,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (97,305) Total Expenditures 3,892,809 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 3,196,300 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 — Carryover Budget 253,000 Internal Transfers 602,213 Beginning Fund Balance (543.538) Ending Fund Balance 482,139 3,990,114 Budget Adjustment Sources Merchandise Sales 41,000 Ending Working Capital (138,305) Total Budget Adjustment Sources (97,305) Total Sources of Funding 3,892.809 (1) Correct overhead allocations. (2) Adjust Golf management fees and merchandise sales to more closely reflect expected actuals. BE 98ADJORD2.xls IMMS City of Kent Fleet Services Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,314,874 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 73,280 Carryover Budget 142,000 2,530,154 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Park Maintenance replacement tractor 7f7J98 40,824 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Fleet Services Equipment-Pavement Marker,Fire Vehicle (1) 20,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 60,824 Total Expenditures 2,590,978 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 2,770,380 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 (15,661) Carryover Budget 142,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2,566,221 Ending Fund Balance (2,932.786) 2,530.154 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-General Fund 7,500 Ending Working Capital 53,324 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 60,824 Total Sources of Funding 2,590,978 (1) Adjust equipment budget to reflect expected actual cost of purchased equipment. BE 98ADJORD2 As 12098 City of Kent Central Services Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,466,086 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 192,000 Carryover Budget 1,492,000 Internal Transfers 180•000 6,330,086 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Not Previously Approved by Council Budget Correction-Reallocate overhead charged to Central Stores (1) (39,080) Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (3-9,080) Total Expenditures 6,291,006 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,474,681 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 192,000 Carryover Budget 1,492,000 Internal Transfers 180,000 Beginning Fund Balance 5S,054 Ending Fund Balance (63`679) 6,330,086 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital (39`080) Total Budget Adjustment Sources (39,080) Total Sources of Funding 6,291,006 (1) Correct overhead allocations. BE MADJORD2.xls City of Kent Fire Equipment Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 66,853 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 20,000 86,853 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date Mobile Air Supply Apparatus 3/17/98 155,393 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 155,393 Total Expenditures 242,246 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 451,348 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 623,478 Ending Fund Balance (987,973) 86,853 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-Foam Trailer Replacement 35,000 Ending Working Capital 120,393 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 155,393 Total Sources of Funding 242,246 BE 98ADJORD2.xls 122198 City of Kent Facilities Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,617,627 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 511,755 Carryover Budget 629,840 Internal Transfers 1,088,434 6,847,656 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Facilities Maintenance(Council recording equipment) (1) 14,000 Previously Approved with Council Date Property Lease-Aukeen,407 W.Gowe Zr" 60,956 Tenant Improvements(includes 15%contingency): 12/8198 City Hall 115,000 Centennial 589,650 Kent Memorial Park Building 172,500 Fire Prevention/Old Court 115,000 Station 74-Phase 11 Repairs 113,850 Not Previously Approved by Council Budget Correction-Drug Evidence Ventillation (2) 25,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 1,205,956 Total Expenditures 8,053,612 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 4,621,712- Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 108,420 Carryover Budget 629,840 Internal Transfers 1,088,434 Beginning Fund Balance 326,114 Ending Fund Balance 73,136 6,847,656 Budget Adjustment Sources Transfer In-Misc Unallocated Projects 14,000 Public Office Building Revenue 2,194 Transfer In-Seized Assets 25,000 Proceeds from Councilmanic Bonds 1,106,000 Ending Working Capital 58,762 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 1,205,956 Total Sources of Funding 8,053,612 s®ems (1) Move previously approved project budgets to Facilities projects. (2) This project was approved in the 1998 Capital Facilities Plan with Police seized asset funding,but was inadvertently missed in the 1998 budget. BE 98ADJORD2.xls 1ZW8 City of Kent Insurance Fund Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 5,972,939 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 5,972,939 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Not Previously Approved by Council Repair of Damaged Assets (1) 85,000 Health Insurance Claims (2) 550,000 Workers Comp Health 8 Safety Services (3) 10,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 645,000 Total Expenditures 6,617,939 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 5,740,796 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 3,617,958 Ending Fund Balance (3,385,815) 5,972,939 Budget Adjustment Sources Reimbursements/Losses and Damages 85,000 Ending Working Capital 560,000 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 645.E Total Sources of Funding 6,617,939 (1) Adjust property insurance budget to cover Police water damage. (2) Adjust health insurance claims budget to cover estimated claims. (3) Adjust worker's compensation health and safety services budget to cover expected actual costs. BE 98ADJORD2.xls 1MAS City of Kent Economic Development Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1998 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3384 10,433 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 10,433 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Not Previously Approved by Council Budget Correction-Reallocate overhead charged to Central Stores 26 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 26 Total Expenditures 10,459 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3384 13,935 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3416 0 Beginning Fund Balance 20,467 Ending Fund Balance (23,969) 10,433 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital 26 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 26 Total Sources of Funding 10,459 BE 9BADJORD2.xls 1=198 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 1998 Budget for adjustments made since July 1, 1998 and authorizing an additional line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) to cover expenditures. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The 1998 City budget is hereby amended to include budget fund adjustments as summarized and set forth in Exhibit A which is incorporated in this ordinance by reference as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. There is hereby established, as part of the 1998 budget, a line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) in an amount not to exceed$200,000.00. The funds may only be used as needed. SECTION 3. There is hereby established, as part of the 1998 budget, a line of credit from the General Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex in an amount not to exceed $250,000.00. The funds may only be used as needed. SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent 1 1998-Budget Adjustmen jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION S. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five(5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1998. APPROVED: day of ' 1998. PUBLISHED: day of . 1998. 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 PALAW10rdi�m\BUDGMS doc 2 1998-Budget Adjustment BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE Exhibit A FUND BUDGET General Fund 179,499 Street Fund 390,213 Capital Improvements 272,778 Criminal Justice 638,406 Other Operating Projects (143,000) Councilmanic Debt Service 524,778 Street Capital Project 6,426,704 Park Capital Project (498,555) Other Capital Project (212,428) Water 16,643 Sewerage 7,204,075 Golf Complex (97,305) Fleet Services 60,824 Central Services (39,080) Fire Equipment Fund 155,393 Facilities Fund 1,205,956 Insurance 645,000 Economic Development 26 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 1697299927 L=: (2,194) Internal Service Funds (666,197) Other Transfers (423,572) Internal Transfers (110919963) TOTAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENT 15,6379964 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 CITY ART PLAN FIVE YEAR - CITY ART PLAN CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 CITY ART PLAN PROJECTS Train Station Artwork 45,000 Millennium Public Participation Artwork ('99&'00) 30,000 Reclamation Art Project (2) 121000 Refurbish 1 Major Artwork 25,000 Performing Art Center planning 10,000 Portable Collection Purchases 3,000 East Hill Park (in progress) - Garrison Creek Park (in progress) - Gateway Project (CIP Funds) - Subtotal $ 125,000 OTHER EXPENSES Administration 361000 Maintenance, Supplies 7,300 Insurance 11300 Design Fee, Honorariums, Prof. Services 6,500 Postage and Printing 2.900 Subtotal 54,000 TOTAL $1799000 2 �. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 1999 CITY ART PLAN AND FIVE-YEAR CITY ART PLAN - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the 1999 City Art Plan and Five- Year City Art Plan for 1999-2003 . In compliance with the general procedures of the City Art Program, Ordinance No. 2552, Kent Arts Commission budgets for all City art program projects are compiled annually. Proposed projects for years 1999-2003 are detailed in the attached exhibit . 3 . EXHIBITS : Outline of City Art Plan and Budget 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks 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. 6N KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 CITY ART PLAN Project Title: Artwork for the New Train Station Project Description: The Kent Arts Commission will partner with SoundTransit on the art program for the new train station and adjoining parking garage. The artwork will vary throughout the large site and will include integrated works. Estimated 1999 Costs: $ 45,000 Funding Source: City Art Plan Background: SoundTransit has a 1% for art program. The SoundTransit budget is for 1% of capital only and will not include the parking garage that is being funded by the City. The KAC recognizes that this is a major project for the community and wants art to be incorporated into the whole site, including the parking garage. By contributing funds to the SoundTransit art budget, the Kent Arts Commission will assist in the artist selection, work with the artist during design development and review the artwork before presentation to SoundTransit, the Kent Technical Advisory Committee and ultimately the Kent City Council. The integration of the artwork into the design and construction of projects has traditionally helped with maintenance, curbing vandalism and allowing budget dollars to be spent efficiently. Project Title: Millennium Public Participation Artwork Project Description: A professional artist would be hired to create an artwork that is conceptual tied to the millennium and the Kent Community. The artwork will be a community participation project, with community input and involvement sought. A site has yet to be chosen. Estimated 1999 Costs: $30,000 Funding Source: City Art Plan Background: The previous public participation projects, the 1995 "Portrait of the Green River", the 1997 "Lake Meridian Community artworks., and the 1998 Japanese- American artwork, have been very successful. The Arts Commission is interested in building on this success and continuing to use public art as a vehicle for creating a "sense of place" within our community. Given Kent's rapidly growing and changing population, the Arts Commission feels that a community participation public art project is an ideal element to have people feel connected to their city and community. The millennium offers an ideal moment to commemorate our city and community. 3 KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 CITY ART PLAN Project Title: Reclamation Art Project (RAP) Proiect Description: This project is a continuation of the successful public art program that has area youth designing and producing artworks with a professional artist. Two projects are planned for 1999. One project will be at the new West Hill Skate Park and the other site will be determined. The overall design of the projects (mural, installation, environmental work, etc.) will be determined by the youth in cooperation with the artist and the Parks Department staff. Estimated 1999 Costs: $12,000 Fundinq Source: City Art Plan Background: The first Reclamation Art Project, the "Dig It" mural in West Fenwick Park, was completed by students of Kent West High School in 1994. Following the success of that project, four works were completed in 1995, two in 1996, three in 1997 and two in 1998 throughout the City. The response from the youth and the community has been extremely positive. The projects have promoted the City's interest in working with youth. Vandalism has declined and money has been saved in maintenance. Project Title: Refurbishment of a major artwork Project Description: The sculpture "EARTH" by Barbara Grygutis, which was located in West Fenwick Park, is need of rebuilding. The artist will move the artwork to a more accessible area in the park and change the design to both aid future maintenance and have the work more integrated into the park. Estimated 1999 Costs: $25,000 Funding Source: City Art Plan Background: The City's investment into public artwork includes the maintenance of the artwork. As the City's collection matures, artworks will need significant attention. A case by case decision is made on the degree and cost of the maintenance of the artworks. The Arts Commission recommends that since this work is important and significant to the City's collection, the investment should occur to keep it looking its best. The major renovation of Valdis Zarins' sculpture "Sentinel; Kent" outside of the Library was a success in 1998. 4 KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 CITY ART PLAN Project Title: Portable Collection Purchases Project Description: Purchase high quality artworks from the Kent Canterbury Faire Juried Fine Art Exhibit. The artworks will be exhibited in publicly accessible areas of the City of Kent facilities. Estimated 1999 Costs: $3,000 Funding Source: City Art Plan Background: The City of Kent Arts Commission has established a collection of portable artwork that includes paintings, prints and other works. The purchase awards at the Canterbury Faire Fine Art Exhibit bring a higher quality of artwork to the exhibit and allows the City to obtain artwork to enhance the public buildings. This program also supports local artists and promotes participation in City programs. Project Title: Performing Art Center Planning Proiect Description: An artist would be hired to work with architects, staff and the performing Art Center Board to define opportunities for artwork to be integrated into the center. Estimated 1999 Costs: $10,000 Funding Source: City Art Plan Background: The Arts Commission recommends that public art have a major presence in the new Performing Art Center. As with many large public construction projects, i.e. Regional Justice Center and Kent Train Station, the artwork can become an integral and identifying element in the building. Planning for the artwork helps with maximizing the budget, future maintenance and the overall aesthetics of the building. 5 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 - 2003 CITY ART PLAN 1999 PROJECTS COSTS Train Station Artwork 45,000 Millennium Public Participation Artwork ('99&'00) 30,000 Reclamation Art Project (2) 12,000 Refurbish 1 Major Artwork 25,000 Performing Art Center Planning 10,000 Portable Collection Purchases 3,000 East Hill Park (in progress) - Garrison Creek Park (in progress) - Gateway Project (CIP Funds) - Administration/Maintenance 54,000 Approximate Year Total $ 179,000 2000 PROJECTS COSTS Millennium Public Participation Artwork ('99&'00) 30,000 Kent Commons Entrance Artwork 75,000 Reclamation Art Project (2) 12,000 Portable Collection Purchases 41000 Administration/Maintenance 54,000 Approximate Year Total $ 175,000 6 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KENT ARTS COMMISSION 1999 - 2003 CITY ART PLAN 2001 PROJECTS COSTS Performing Art Center Artwork 70,000 132"d Park Artwork 50,000 Reclamation Art Projects (2) 12,000 Portable Collection Purchases 4,000 Administration/Maintenance 54,000 Approximate Year Total $190,000 2002 PROJECTS COSTS Performing Art Center Artwork 70,000 Reclamation Art Project 8,000 Portable Collection Purchases 4,000 Administration/Maintenance 55,000 Approximate Year Total $137,000 2003 PROJECTS COSTS Capital Project Artwork 70,000 Reclamation Art Project 8,000 Portable Collection Purchases 4,000 Administration/Maintenance 55,000 Approximate Year Total $137,000 7 .............. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending Section 4 . 02 . 030 of the Kent City Code relating to membership in the City Arts Commission establishing certain requirements for appointment . 3 . EXHIBITS : Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: S SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 60 i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code entitled "Arts Commission" by amending section 4.02.030 relating to membership of the City Arts Commission by establishing requirements for appointment to the commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: - Chapter 4.02 of the Kent City Code entitled "Arts Commission is hereby amended by amending section 4.02.030 as follows: Sec. 4.02.030. Membership; term. The membership of the city arts commission shall be twelve (12) members to be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council. To be qualified to serve as a member on the city arts; commission. candidates must reside or own property within the City or one of its utility or parks department service areas or, altematively, work or own a business within the. Citv's municipal boundaries. Appointments shall be for a period of four (4) years or for the unexpired balance of the term for which appointed, whichever is the lesser period. In addition to the twelve (12) appointed members, one (1) member of the city council shall be designated by the president of the city council to serve as an ex-officio member of the arts commission. SECTION 2. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision. 1 Arts Commission Membership shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 1 SECTION 3. , Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be i force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided b law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 11998. APPROVED: day of , 1998. PUBLISHED: day of 11998. 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 ILAW\Ordmwmn mmmwwn doc 2 Arts Commission Membershi Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PETS IN PARKS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. regarding removal of pet waste in City parks . City staff received numerous complaints from citizens relat- ing to dogs off leash and animal feces in our parks and on our trails . City staff is proposing changes to Kent City Code Section 8 . 03 . 030 requiring pet owners to have their pets on a leash and require them to clean up after their pets . 3 . EXHIBITS : Copy of new ordinance and letter from King County Licensing and Regulatory Services Division 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . 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. 6P long County COPY RECEIVED Licensing and Regulatory Services Division DDeeppaarrt m=0c SEP 211998 Informoation and Administrative Swvwm 1GngcowttyAdministrationBuilding Kent City attorney 500 Fourth Avenue Room 411 Seattle,WA 98104-2337 (206)296%U88 (206)296.0100 TDD September 17, 1998 Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney City of Kent 220 -4th Avenue South Kent Washington 98032-5895 Re: Your File No.PK0105 Proposed Animal Waste Ordinance Dear Ms. Evezich: This letter will confirm our recent phone conversation on September 9, 1998. King County Animal Control will enforce the proposed Animal Waste Ordinance and it will not be necessary to amend the interlocal agreement. When the ordinance is passed, please send us a signed copy for our records. Perhaps more importantly, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the appropriate city staff regarding the city's expectations of enforcement, problems and/or issues that led to this proposal, and what level of service would be required and is available, and so forth. We would be happy to meet with the Parks Director and Parks Superintendent, or any others, and would appreciate you assisting with this meeting. You can reach me at 206-296-4015. I look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know if you need additional information and thank you in advance. Sincerely, Vicki Schmitz, Assistant Mana er ' g Licensing and Regulatory Services Division cc: Chief Dan Graves, Animal Control Section ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 8.03 of the Kent City Code to include a provision requiring persons who own or are in control of any pet or animal to remove any animal waste deposited by such animal in City parks and to have in his or her possession the equipment necessary for removal of such animal waste. WHEREAS, the City of Kent and King County have agreed that King County will perform animal control services for the City of Kent pursuant to RCW 39.34.010 and 39.34.080; and WHEREAS,the City of Kent and King County have agreed to amend their interlocal agreement to authorize King County to enforce the City's Animal Waste Control Regulation; and WHEREAS, in the interest of the preservation and protection of the natural environment, public health, safety, and welfare, the City has determined that it is necessary to require any person who owns or is in control of any pet or animal to immediately remove from park areas any and all feces deposited by such animal while in a park and to carry the necessary equipment for removal of such animal feces within a park; NOW THEREFORE, I 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENI', WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i SECTION 1. Section 8.'03.030 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 8.03.030. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Abatement means the termination of any violation by reasonable and lawful means determined by the director in order that an owner or a person presumed to be the owner shall comply with this chapter. Animal means any living creature except persons, insects and worms. Animal control authority means the King County Animal Control Section,licensing and regulatory services division, acting alone or in concert with other municipalities for enforcement of animal control laws and the shelter and welfare of animals. Animal control officer means any individual employed, contracted or appointed by the animal control authority for the purpose of aiding in the enforcement of this chapter or any other law or ordinance relating to the licensing of animals, control of animals or seizure and impoundment of animals, and includes any state or municipal peace officer, sheriff, constable or other employee whose duties in whole or in part include which involve the seizure and taking into custody of any animal. Animal rescuer means any individual who routinely obtains an unwanted dog or cat or who locates within ninety (90) days an adopted home for that spayed or neutered dog or cat provided, however, an interim, administrative extension may be granted by the animal control authority for a maximum of six (6) months if a dog or cat is pregnant, nursing, or injured and that condition is verified by a veterinarian. Cattery means a place where four (4) or more adult cats are kept, whether by owners of the cats or by persons providing facilities and care, whether or not for compensation, but not including small animal hospital, clinic or pet shop. An adult cat is one of either sex, altered or unaltered, that has reached an age of six(6)months. i Dangerous dog means that term as defined by RCW 16.08.070, and sections' 8.03.220 through 8.03.250. Director means the individual in charge of and responsible for the King County Animal Control Section, licensing and regulatory division. Domesticated animal means any dog, cat, rabbit, horse, mule, ass,bovine animal, lamb, goat, sheep or hog, bird, or other animal made to be domestic. Euthanasia means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death, or by a method that causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness. Exotic animal means any of the following: 1. Venomous species of snakes capable of inflicting serious harm or death to human beings. 2. Non human primates and prosimians. 3. Bears. 4. Nondomesticated species of felines. 5. Nondomesticated species of canines and their hybrids, including wolf and coyote hybrids. 6. The order of crocodilia, including alligators, crocodiles, caiman, and I gavials. Grooming parlor means any place or establishment, public or private, where. animals are bathed, clipped or combed, whether or not for compensation, for the purpose of enhancing their aesthetic value. Harboring, keeping, or maintaining a dog or cat means performing any of the acts of providing care, shelter, protection, refuge, food, or nourishment in such manner as to control the animals actions, or, that the animal(s) is treated as living at one's house by the homeowner. Hobby cattery means a noncommercial cattery at or adjoining a private residence where four(4)or more adult cats are bred or kept for exhibition for organized shows or for' the enjoyment of the species provided, however, a combination hobby cattery/kennel license may be issued where the total number of cats and dogs exceeds the number allowed; under title 15 of the Kent City Code. Hobby kennel means a noncommercial kennel at or adjoining a private residence where four (4) or more adult animals are bred and/or kept for hunting, training and exhibition for organized shows, field, w6rking and/or obedience trials or for enjoyment. Juvenile means any dog or cat, altered-or unaltered,that is under the age of six (6) months. Kennel means a place where four(4)or more adult dogs or cats or any combination thereof are kept whether by owners of the dogs and cats or by persons providing facilities and care, whether or not for compensation, but not including a small animal hospital or clinic or pet shop. An adult dog or cat is one of either sex, altered or unaltered, that has reached the age of six (6) months. Leash shall include a cord, thong or chain not more than eight(8) feet in length by which an animal is controlled by the person accompanying it. Livestock means horses, bovine animals, sheep, goats, swine,reindeer, donkeys,, mules and fowl. Owner means any person having an interest in or right of possession to an animal'i or any person having control, custody or possession of any animal, or who, by reason of the animal being seen residing consistently in a location, may presume to be the owner, and includes the definition as provided in RCW 16.08.070. Pack of dogs means a group of three (3) or more dogs running upon either public or private property not that of its owner in a state in which either its control or ownership is in doubt or cannot readily be ascertained, and when such dogs are not restrained or controlled. Park means and includes all parks, squares, drives, parkways, docks, piers. moorage buovs and floats, boulevards, golf courses, beaches, playgrounds and recreation 4 areas, play fields,public gardens, green belts, and other park, recreation, and open space areas, buildings, and facilities comprising the parks and recreation system of the City of Kent. I Person means any individual, partnership, firm,joint stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate or other legal entity. Pet shop means a person or establishment that acquires for the purpose of sale live animals, including birds, reptiles, fowl and fish, bred by others whether as owner-agent, or on consignment, and sells,or offers to sell such live animals, including birds, reptiles, fowl and fish, to the public or to retail outlets.- Potentially dangerous dog means that term as defined in RCW 16.08.070 and. sections 8.03.220.through 8.03.250 of this Code. Restraint means an animal is considered to be under restraint if it is maintained and remains within the property limits of its owner or keeper. Running at large means to be off the premises of the owner or on the premises of another without the written permission of the owner thereof and not on a leash and not under the control of the owner or competent person authorized by the owner. Service animal means any animal which is trained or being trained to aid a person who is blind, hearing impaired, or otherwise disabled and is used for that purpose and is registered with a recognized service animal organization. Shelter means a facility which is used to house or contain stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals and which is owned, operated or maintained by a public body, an established humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization or person devoted to the welfare, protection and humane treatment of animals. Under control means the animal is restrained by aleash. chain, or similar device from approaching any bystander or other animal and from causing or being the cause of physical property damage when off the premises of the owner. Vicious means actions of animals, other than a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog, with the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of any 5 person, animal,property of another, including, but not limited to, a disposition to mischief or fierceness as might occasionally lead to attack on human beings without provocation, whether in play or outbreak of untrained nature. i SECTION 2. A new section, Section 8.03.205 is hereby added to Chapter 8.03 of the Kent City Code as follows: Sec. 8.03.205. Animals in Parks. A. Any person with a dog or other animal in his or her possession in any park shall be. responsible for the conduct of the animal by keeping the animal under control as that term is defined in this chapter and for removing from the park any animal feces deposited.by such animal. B. It is unlawful for such person to fail to have in his or her possession the equipment necessary to remove his or her animal's fecal matter when accompanied by said animal in any park. C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a"guide"or"service" dog as now or hereafter defined in Ch. 70.84 RCW. D. Violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall subject. the offender to prosecution pursuant to Sec. 8.03.300(C) or prosecution for a pubic nuisance. SECTION 3. - Severability. 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 t4 is Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. 6 JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of . 1998. APPROVED: day of 1998. PUBLISHED: day of 1998. 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 tLAW\OAD(NANC\dogwop.ord.doc 7 ............... _ Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8 , 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointment of Brad Bell, Steve Dowell, and Ron Harmon to continue serving as members of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Their new terms will continue until 12/31/2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum 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 . 6Q MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1998 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD I have reappointed Brad Bell, Steve Dowell and Ron Harmon to continue serving as members of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Their new terms will continue until 12/31/2001. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS AND APPOINTMENT - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointments of Pastor John Jendresen and Melvin Tate to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new terms will continue until 1/1/2002 . Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Edna White to serve as a member of the Commission. Ms . White is a long time Kent resident . She is active in Kent Soroptimists and is a past president . She is a member of the Kent Performing Arts Center Board of Directors, serves as a member of the Board of the Southcenter Merchants Association, and is a member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce . Ms . White will replace Dee Moschel, whose term has expired, and she will represent the Service Clubs category. Her new term will continue until 1/1/2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: S _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Counciimember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6R MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHIT DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1998 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have reappointed Pastor John Jendresen and Melvin Tate to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new terms will continue until 1/1/2002. I have also appointed Edna White to serve as a member of the Commission. Ms. White is a long time Kent resident. She is active in Kent Soroptimists and is a past president. She is a member of the Kent Performing Arts Center Board of Directors, serves as a member of the Board of the Soutlicenter Merchants Association, and is a member of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. Ms. White will replace Dee Moschel, whose term has expired, and she will represent the Service Clubs category. Her new term will continue until 1!1/2002. 1 submit this for your confirmation. Ib Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE REAPPOINTMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointment of Rod Blalock and Peter Mourer to continue serving as members of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Their new terms will continue until l/l/2002 . Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Richard Manoli to serve as a Task Force member. Mr. Manoli is employed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board and is Acting Director of the Kent office . He will replace Jim Sawyers whose term expired. Mr. Mancli ' s new term will continue until 1/l/2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : S SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 6S MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FROM: MAYOR JIM WHIT DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1998 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS AND APPOINTMENT TO KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE I have reappointed Rod Blalock and Peter Mourer to continue serving as members of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. Their new terms will continue until 1/l/2002. 1 have also appointed Richard Manoli to serve as a Task Force member. Mr. Manoli is employed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board and is Acting Director of the Kent office. He will replace Jim Sawyers whose term expired. Mr. Manoli's new term will continue until 1/1/2002. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REAPPOINTMENT - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMbMRY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappointment of Don Villeneuve to continue serving as a member of the RJC Citizens Advisory Committee. His new term will continue until 1/1/2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: ? . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 6T MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL ME ERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHIT DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1998 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO RJC CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE I have reappointed Don Villeneuve to continue serving as a member of the RJC Citizens Advisory Committee. His new term will continue until 1/1/2001. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT-MERIDIAN HIGH SCHOOL SANITARY SEWER REPAIR - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept as complete the Kent Meridian High School Sanitary Sewer Repair contract and release of retainage to Insituform West, Inc. upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The original contract amount was $53, 855 . 83 . The final construction cost was $46, 481 . 18 . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : S _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6U Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 349, S. 223RD STREET SANITARY SEWER - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUbVARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, accept as complete the LID 349 - S. 223rd Street Sanitary Sewer contract and release of retainage to Laser Underground upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens . The original contract amount was $284, 456. 96. The final construction cost was $282, 121 . 55 . 3 . EXHIBITS : None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : S _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 6V ............. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT CONTRACT - APPROVAL OF EXTENSION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization to extend the Consolidated Food Management Contract through December 31, 1999, as recommended by the Public Safety Committee . The City of Kent Corrections Facility (CKCF) contracts for food services with Consolidated Food Management, Inc. (CFM) . This contract is due to expire on December 31, 1998 . Pursuant to the renewal option, as outlined in Section 11 . 01 of the contract, both parties request to extend the contract for an additional year. CKCF has been very pleased with the services provided by Consolidated Food Management, Inc. and its staff . Please note that there are no wording or payment schedule changes associated with this request . This extension would cover the period of January 1 , 1999 through December 31, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Letter of request from Consolidated Food Management, Inc. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Public Safety Committee on 11/24/98 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) � . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6W TRANSMIT REPORT 1996, 12-03 17:49 2S3 813 2067 CITY KENT MAYORS OF-- ~ COM REMOTE STATION START TIME DURATION PAGES RESULT USER REMARKS No. I 1 ID 44S KENT CORRECTIONS 12-03 17:46 00'44 01/01 OK 043-29 JtG. -JJ 98 1,UI I U'9 KbN1 V41U UtYI -.-. --.-.. - -d - 9c r __:1^. 1' 'nrw l-.rcnr•-i lf,:fv�. hHJ� IW_ W _ _;�/2311998 :E:l: Z86'c321°53 .COtinclidated lFbOd Management, l nc• . IYteR�r Bland.wA ' (Z061232 9M 2448 760%Awr.S.B.,8Ws4103 September Z3, 1998 Captain James Mille: Clty of Kent Police Department 2.20 pour b, Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Dear Captain Millen th the City Of X On December 31. 199'B, O ed food odeMenigern nrvice t, Inc. �'"ent tould app�ete the toppon jail 1�Ill hY due for renewal. Cunsolid to continue Our service to the City of Kent � i'ursuant to the option of renewal, as outlines in Section 1101 of our agreement, ConsoUdated Food Management, Inc. requests that our conteact with the City of Kent be continued for an additional year. i We ttave enjoyed working with your department. we appreciate the cooperatton and ` support you and your people haYr gave uR.over the past years, and sincerely hOPe We can continue to serve the City of Kent for years to come. Sincerely, CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT, INC. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: BICYCLE BOARD APPOINTMENT - CONFIRMATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Robert Hoffman and Steve Babbitt to continue serving as members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. Their new terms will continue until 12/31/2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) E . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION : AC'ION : Council Agenda Item No. 6X MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE "— DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1998 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD I have reappointed Robert Hoffman and Steve Babbitt to continue serving as members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. Their new terms will continue until 12/31/2000. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 1999 TAX LEVY CAPACITY PROTECTION - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee recommended adoption of an ordinance which states the Council ' s intent to levy an amount equal to inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator of 0 . 85%, but to protect the Council ' s future right to levy the maximum allowable, authorizes a limit factor of 6% over last year ' s highest allowable levy. This ordinance requires passage by a supermajority of Council . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from AWC and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember tt)"eed moves , Councilmember seconds to approve Ordinance No. 57 3Llprotecting the future right of the Council to levy the maximum amount by authorizing a limit factor of 60 over the last year ' s highest allowable levy DISCUSSION: ACTION : �Y1 L Council Agenda Item No. 7A .1076 Franklin SC SE Olj� Nwc 753-4 ia..WA X753- 896 (360)?53-4137;1=AX'753-4896 ASSOCIATION OF WASE NGTON CI TIES October 27, 1998 TO: Mayors,Managers, Clerks, and Finance Directors in Cities with populations of 10,000 or more FROM: Ron Rosenbloom, Association of Washington Cities SUBJECT: Protection of Future Property Tax Levy Capacity The Department of Revenue recently issued a more liberal interpretation of RCW 84-55.092 protection of future levy capacity, in light of Referendum 47. Attached is a memo from the department explaining the new interpretation. Also attached is a background information piece prepared by AWC staff. The Department now recognizes that a taxing district with a population of 10,000 or more may bank unused levy capacity above the rate of inflation(IPD), up to a 6 percent maximum, if a super- majority of the legislative authority passes an ordinance or resolution finding a"substantial need." The ordinance or resolution must state the actual levy capacity to be protected. For example, if a city passes an ordinance finding a"substantial need"bf 6 percent, but the city only levies a 4 percent increase, the city may bank the difference of 2 percent to use in future years. A word of caution is in order. Page three of the Department's memo says that the question they are trying to answer is whether a large taxing district"may identify a future need for additional money . . ." (Emphasis ours.) The memo also includes an example that recites specific circumstances that would give rise to a future need ("additional money to support the operation of a new jail slated for future development'. The"Conclusion" on page four of the Department's memo, however, contains no reference to future . needs or specific circumstances, and appears to require only that the district"demonstrate substantial need by passing a resolution/ordinance by a super-majority of the governing board." Before drafting an ordinance or resolution to protect future levy capacity, AWC urges you to consult your attorney to decrease the likelihood of a court challenge. Please be sure to send a copy of your resolution/ordinance to Judy Cox at Municipal Research and Services Center, 1200 5'Avenue, Suite 1300, Seattle, WA 98101-1159. Jurisdictions with populations of less than 10,000 are not limited to the inflation growth factor, and consequently are not affected by the Department's memo. If you have any questions,please call Ron Rosenbloom or Faith Trimble of AWC at(360) 753-4137. RR/Fr Background Information Background Prior to 1986,taxing districts had an incentive to mist their general property tax levies by the maximum amount allowed(i.e.up to the 6 percent lid),whether or not they needed the additional revenue. If they did not raise their that additional levy capacity in the future. levies by the maximum amount,they lost Legislation enacted in 1986 eliminated this ir leviesviees by the full amounts each year. In effect,the 1986 lawature.from.the law,thereby removing s allowed. incentive for taxing districts to increase the a taxing district to set its levy in a given year at an amount that assumed hypothetically that the district increased its levy for each year beginning with 1986 by the"the full amount allowed under this chapter"RCW 84.55.092. Prior to the passage of Referendum 47,RCW 84.55.010 limited the levy for regular property taxesn a given year to one hundred six percent of the amount levied in the highest of the three most recent ears,p lusew construction and improvements. That is,the"full amount allowed under this chapter" as used in RCW 84.55.092 referred to one hundred six percent. Referendum 47 ith Referendum 47 amended RCW 84.55.010 by replacing the words"one hundred si oses of RCW 84.5 e l(which factor multiplied by." Thus,the"full amount allowed under thischap ter' for urp was not amended by the referendum) is now the"limit factor." For taxing districts with a population of less than 10,000,Referendum 47 defines theit fit factotor" is generally as one hundred six percent. For taxing districts with a population of 10,000 or more, the defined as the lesser of one hundred six percent or one hundred percent plus d�tricts to tion provide forg the use of 4... Deflator,or IPD). However,Referendum 47 allows even these larger taxrice ing P vote of "limit factor" of up to one hundred six percent upon a fording of substantial need(with a supeanajority the legislative authority). Department of Revenue Ruling ent of Revenue advised that from 1998 forward taxing Shortly after the adoption of Referendum 47,the Departm districts with a population of 10,000 or more could protect future levy capacity Under the departments original only if they increased their levy by less than the Implicit Price Deflator(IPD). interpretation,the amount of future levy capacity that could be protected was the d strict took only a 1 percent Pent increase n 1998 nce between the�D and the levy increase actually taken. For example, if a taxiere ng taxing district would have a future levy capacity of an additional 0.9 percent(the IPD in 1998 was 1.9 Percent). At the urging of the Washington Public Ports Association and others, including AWC,the deajority o�le tiagreed to reconsider its original interpretation. The Department now recognizes that a resolution/ordinance approving the authority of a taxing district with a population of 10,000 or more may p use of a"limit factor" of upto of less than the approved Plim t factoron a ,one hundred six percent 'gthen the di of fference is protehcted or future district then levies an increase levy. district asses an resolution/ordinance approving For example: Assume that the IPD is 2 percent, but the taxing P the use of a limit factor of one hundre originald six pr nterp er tatiosume pn, an add ther that tional he 1percpernt would ha estrict in fact pbeen ly a 1 percent increase. Under the department's protected for future levy, i.e. the difference between the IPD and the amount levied Under the new interpretation, an additional 5 percent is protected, i.e.the difference between the"limit factor" approved b; supermajority(i.e. one hundred six percent) and the amount levied. (G:FT:Ioance:p'oD��PadtYl Association of Washington Cities ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing a one hundred six percent (106%) property tax levy limit factor for 1999 to protect the City's future property tax levy capacity. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and after providing all appropriate notice, the City Council held a public hearing on November 17, 1998, to consider the City of Kent's current expense budget for the 1999 calendar year; and . WHEREAS, after this hearing and after-duly. considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, the City Council determined.that,th-e.City:of Kent requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year's-revenues, in addition - to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction.:and improvements-.to property, annexations and any increase in the value of.state-assessed property- and the " - refund fund leery, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the-City and to protect t'•.te best interests of the citizenry; and WHEREAS, the City intends to establish its actual 1999 property tax levy increase, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, to one hundred percent (100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumption. which for 1999 taxes will be a .85 percent increase from the previous year's property tax levy; however, the level of services provided by the city have been impacted.by recent 1 Tax Levy-Protected growth and annexations and may be further impacted by a slowing of the economy in the region, therefore, the City finds a substantial need exists to preserve its tax levy limit factor to preserve its future property tax levy capacity; and WHEREAS, upon a finding of a "substantial need" and the vote of a majority plus one of the council, the City can adopt an ordinance protecting its future tax levy capacity; and WHEREAS, to best preserve the public health, safety and welfare, to best protect the City's future property tax levy capacity, and to best serve the citizens of Kent by maintaining an appropriate level of service throughout-the City, an increase in the regular property tax levy limit factor, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, should be authorized to one hundred six percent(106%)which would allow an increase from the previous year's highest allowable property tax levy in an amount currently estimated to,be approximately $911,457.00, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION]. Findings. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this ordinance; SECTION 2. Property Tax Lew Limit Factor Authorized. Based on the foregoing findings that a substantial need exists to increase the regular property tax levy limit factor and to best protect the City's future property tax levy capacity, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and.the refund fund 2 Tax Levy-Protecteal levy, the regular property tax levy limit factor for 1999 is authorized to one hundred six percent (106%) which would allow a six (6) increase from the previous year's highest allowable property tax levy in an amount currently estimated to be approximately $911,457.00. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of publication of this ordinance. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 Tax Levy-Protecte PASSED: day of 1998. APPROVED: day of 1998. PUBLISHED: day of 1998. 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'LLAW\Ordi� wn Tml vy.limitf c r.99.d% 4 Tax Levy-Protecte Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 - Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 1999 TAX INCREASE FOR INFLATION - ORDINANCE 2 . SUbff,4ARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended adoption of an ordinance establishing the actual increase in the regular tax levy at a rate equal to inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator, which is 0 . 85% . The amount of the tax increase is $129, 123 in addition to the amounts added for new construction, any increase in state assessed property, annexations, and the refund fund levy. 3 . EXHIBITS : Worksheet and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 11ITLmoves , Councilmember seconds to approve Ordinance No . establishing the regular property tax increase to an amount of $129, 123, which is equal to the rate of inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator of 0 . 850. DISCUSSION: ' 4 ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 7B PROPERTY TAX- BUDGET RECOMMENDATION —.kssumes regular levy increase of: 0.85% ADJUSTED Regular levy Increase 1998 Regular Levy was : 15,190,951 1999 Proposed Regular Levy Increase in dollars 129,123 Increase as a percentage 0.85% Plus effects of new construction, improvements and increases in the value of state assessed property 439,059 Plus annexation levv 1,309,923 Plus the refund fund 106,938 Total regular tax levy 17,175,994 Levy for Voted Debt Obligations: 1,832,413 Total Levy request 19,008,407 Levy Rates : 1998 1999 Change Percent General Fund Levv Rate 2.9942 2.9272 (0.0670) -2.29% Voted Issues Levv Rate 0.3615 0.3123 (0.0492) -15.76% Total Levy Rate 3.3557 3.2395 (0.1162) -3.59% Del Mar& Meridian Vallev Annexations move to the tax rolls for 1999 budget prptxc.xls 12/3/98 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, authorizing a .85 percent increase in property tax for 1999 according to the implicit price deflator established pursuant to State Referendum 47. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and after providing all ppropriate notice, the City Council held a public hearing on November 17, 1998, to consider the City of Kent's current expense budget for the 1999 calendar year; and WHEREAS, after this hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, the City Council determined that the City of Kent requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year's revenues, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City and in order to protect the best interests of the citizenry; and WHEREAS, to best preserve the public health, safety and welfare and in order to best serve the citizens of Kent through a continued commitment to capital improvements projects throughout the City, an increase in the regular property tax levy, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, should be authorized to one hundred percent (100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator for 1 Tax Increase -Inflation personal consumption, which for 1999 taxes will be a .85 percent increase from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be $129,123.00; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Property Tax Lew Established. In addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, the regular property tax levy for 1999 is increased to and established at one hundred percent (100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumption, which for 1999 taxes will be a .85 percent increase from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be $129,123.00. SECTION 3. Severability. 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. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 2 Tax Increase-Inflation TTEST: RENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK a PROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1998. - PROVED: day of , 1998. UBLISHED: day of , 1998. 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:\LAW\Ordinn \TaxAdj99inLnomdm _, Tax Increase-Inflation Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 1999 TAX LEVY - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended adoption of a traditional tax levy ordinance which establishes the actual tax levy in dollar amounts . They recommend a levy of $17, 175, 994 for the General fund levy, and $1, 832, 413 for the Debt Service Funds . 3 . EXHIBITS : Worksheet and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee ( 3-0 ) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember &)a ��moves, Councilmemberf V C/ seconds to approve Ordinance No . 3 /�I establishing the regular property tax levy of $17 , 175, 994 for the General fund and $1, 832, 413 for the Debt Service Funds . DISCUSSION : 1 fit: ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 7C PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON LEVY RATES AND DOLLARS REQUESTED ARE BASED ON ACTUAL ASSESSED VALUATION CHANGES 1996 1997 1998 1999 FROM PERCENT ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL RECOMMENDED 1998 CHANGE ASSESSED VALUATION BASE 3,923,361,319 4,096,124,073 4,953,001,569 5,270230,384 317,228,815 6.40% ANNEXATIONS 120,018,471 587,815,613 0 450,804,934 450,804,934 0.00% NEW CONSTRUCTION 85,023,640 158,420,396 120,521,651 146,646,456 26,124,805 21.68% ASSESSED VALUATION TOTAL 4,128,403,430 4,842,360,082 5,073,523,220 5,867,681,774 794,158,554 15.65% PROPERTY TAX LEVIES: GENERAL FUND 11,618,041 14,489,025 15,190,951 17,175,994 1,985,043 13.07% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS PUBLIC SAFETY 557,120 0 0.00% SENIOR HOUSING 319,500 349,900 352,350 353,210 860 0.24% 93 GO REFUNDING 780,695 1,500,807 1,481,740 1,479,203 -2,537 -0.17% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 1,657,315 1,850,707 1,834,090 1,832,413 -1,677 -0.09% TOTAL TAX LEVY 13,275,356 16,339,732 17,025,041 19,008,407 1,983,366 11.65% Lbo— RATES: GENERAL FUND 2.8142 2.9921 2.9942 2.9272 -0.0669 -224% DEBT SERVICE FUNDS PUBLIC SAFETY 0.1349 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00% SENIOR HOUSING 0.0774 0.0723 0.0694 0.0602 -0.0093 -13.32% GO REFUNDING 0.1891 0.3099 0.2921 0.2521 -0.0400 -13.68% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 0.4014 0.3822 0.3615 0.3123 -0.0492 -13.61% TOTAL 3.2156 3.3743 3.3557 3.2395 -0.1162 -3.46% The 1999 general fund tax levy is based on a 0.85% limit factor in accordance with the basic Referendum 47 provision.The weighted average rate for previously existing property and new construction is 2.9272/$1000 Assessed Valuation.With the voted debt service issues that rate is 3.2395, a rate decrease of 11.6 mills overall.This is the second year in a row that the tax rate has declined. prptxc.xls W24/98 (REGULAR PROPERTY LEVY CALCULATION 106°'LBAITATION CALCULATION(RC%V 84 55 010) MA.YIMUM AVAILABLE WITH CERTIFIED ASSESSED VALUATION CALCULATION ASSUMING LID OF: Implicit Price Deflator Maximum Levy 3.0%Levy Increase 0.85% 6.0% 3.o%Levy Increase Percentage 5,270,230,394 5,270,230,394 5,270,230,394 Assessed Valuation less New Construction and Annexations 146,646,456 146,646,456 146,646,456 New Construction added 0 0 Increase In State Public Utility Added To New Construction 450,804,934 450,804,934 450,804,934 Annexations: 1997 Annexations to tax roll for 1999 Budget 5,867,681,774 5,867,691,774 5,867,681,774 Total Assessed Valuation 15,190,951 15,190,951 15,190,951 Highest levy of most recent three years(vs highest lawful due to Council intent regarding annexation into Library district) this amount matches the preliminary estimate-may be higher 100.85% 106.00% 103.00%x LID%(Implicit price deflator or 6%maximum) 15,320,074 16,102,409 15,646,690 LID%Levy 146,646,456 146,646,456 146,646,456 Local new construction 0 0 +State Public Service New Construction 146,646,456 146,646,456 146,646,456 -Total New Construction 2.994 2.994 2.994 x Prior year levy rate 439,059 439,059 439,059 —New Construction Levy 15,320,074 16,102,408 15,646,690 Lid Levy 439,059 439,059 439,059 +New Construction Levy -19,081 -19,081 -19,081 -Omitted Assessment Levy 15,740,053 16,522,387 16,066,658 —Levy Ceiling(Less annexations and omitted assessments) 5,416,876,840 5,416,876,940 5,416,976,940 Regular levy assessed value less annexations 2.906 3.050 2.966 -New Year Levy rate 450,904,934 450,804,934 450,804,934 Annexation assessed value 2.906 3.050 2.966 x New Year levy rate 1,309,923 1,375,031 I�337,104 -Annexation Levy 19,081 19,081 19,081 +Omitted assessment levy 15,740,053 16,522387 16,066,658 -Levy Ceiling(Less annexations and omitteds) 17,069,057 17,916,499 17,422,943 -Maximum New Year Levy based on 106%limit 106.937 106.937 106,937 +Refund Fund 17,175,994 18,023,436 17,529,780 =Maximum New Year Levy based on lid limit+reftmd fund. STATUTORY LEVY CALCULATION 5,867,681,774 5,867,681.774 5,867,681,774 Assessed value(excluding omits) 3.10 3.10 3.10 X maximum statutory rate(S3.60 less.50 Library levy rate) 18,189,813 18,189,813 18,189,813 -Maximum 1998 levy(Excluding Omitted Assessment Levy) 19,081 19,081 19,081 +Omitted Assessment Levy 18,208,894 18,208,894 18,208,894 =Maximtun 1998 Levy based on Statutory Levy 17,175,994 18,023,436 17,529,780 Maximum Regular 1998 levy-the lesser of the two limits 16.821,590 17,667,268 17,174,640 Preliminary Budget Estimates 354,404 356,168 355,140 Increase NewGcnsvumoncAts 1112498 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing the property tax levy for 1999 taxes and the 1999 budget for the City of Kent. WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and after providing all appropriate notice, the City Council held a public hearing on November 17, 1998, to consider the City of Kent's current expense budget for the 1999 calendar year; and WHEREAS, after this hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, the City Council determined that the City of Kent requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year's revenues, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City and in order to protect the best interests of the citizenry; and WHEREAS, to best preserve the public health, safety and welfare and in order to best serve the citizens of Kent through a continued commitment to capital improvements projects throughout the City, in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property, annexations and any increase in the value of state-assessed property and the refund fund levy, an increase in the regular property tax levy should be authorized to one hundred percent (100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumption, 1 Tax Levy-Establishe which for 1999 taxes will be a .85 percent increase, from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be $129,123.00; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.52.070, the City of Kent must, on or before the thirtieth day of November in each year, certify to the county assessor the amount of taxes levied upon property within the City for City purposes, provided that the,county assessor has certified assessed values at least twelve working days before November 30; and WHEREAS, the City received the certified assessed values from the County as required by RCW 84.48.130 on November 18,1998; and WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 84.52.010 and WAC 458-12-365,taxes shall be levied in specific dollar amounts; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated s if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. Levv. There is hereby levied against the property in the City f Kent, Washington, an assessed value for the City's 1999 municipal tax in the following ounts for the following funds: A. For the General Fund, for the purpose of paying the general expenses of municipal government: Levy per $1,000 of assessed valuation Fund (estimated) Amount General Fund 2.9272 $17,175,994.00 2 Tax Levy-Established B. For Voted Bond Interest and Redemption Fund, for the purpose of paying debt service in the following amounts for the following funds: Levy per $1,000 of assessed valuation Fund (estimated) Amount Senior Housing J .0602 $ 353,210.00 General Obligation Refunding .2521 $1,479,203.00 SECTION 3. Limitation on Lew. The application of the general fund levy shall be consistent with and not result in a tax revenue in excess of the limitation imposed by RCW 84.55.010 and State Referendum 47, as passed by the voters in the November 1997 General Election. SECTION 4. Aduustments. Administration shall administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A.33.120. SECTION 5. - Severability. 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. SECTION 6. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK Tax Levy-Established APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY J PASSED: day of 11998. APPROVED: day of , 1998. PUBLISHED: day of , 1998. 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'lLA W 10rdinmw\TAXLE V 99.ORD 4 Tax Levy-Established Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 1999 BUDGET - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended adoption of the 1999 Operating and Capital Budget . The budget is the Preliminary Budget document plus the technical corrections approved at the December 1, 1998 Operations Committee meeting. The Budget is in balance and includes a 10 percent General Fund reserve of $5, 354 , 412 . 3 . EXHIBITS : 1999 Preliminary Budget document (available at the City Clerk' s office) , ordinance, Exhibits A & B, and memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance No . 5 03 adopting the final 1999 Operating and Capital Budget . DISCUSSION : -,M - ACTION : - Council Agenda Item No. 7D Memorandum To:Council Members and Mayor \_ From: MAY MILLER, Finance Director �( Date: 12/02/98 v subjeot: 1999 Budget Adoption The annual 1999 Budget Adoption process includes the following three elements: Preliminary Budget document, technical adjustments and final summary ordinance. A. Preliminary Budget Document, presented November 3, 1998 and available at the City Clerk office. This document includes both operations and the 1999 capital projects from the Capital Facility Plan. The Preliminary document shows the budget in balance with only the .85% (implicit price deflator) property tax increase of $129,123 plus the $150,000 land use fee increase. The budget includes 43.6 new positions before technical adjustments, a budgeted COLA of 2.5% or other amount as identified by union contract and a preliminary estimated 10% fund balance of $5,316,715 (expenditures not including transfers). B. Technical budget adjustments - Exhibit B as follows General Fund 1. The property tax revenue has been increased $285,520 in accordance with the official assessed .valuation numbers from King County. This is not an increase above the 0.85% IPD, but is the result of higher valuation of new construction, Meridian Valley and Del Mar annexations and the final amount of the refund fund. 2. Add two Police Patrol Officers, one starting in May and one in September, and patrol car, equipment and operating costs. The operating costs in the General Fund are $80,952; vehicle and equipment of $46,044 are funded in the Capital Improvement Fund. 3. Increase funding for the Downtown Partnership by $17,000 to a full year's funding at the level allocated in the past. 4. Increase the funding for those positions initially proposed to be phased in through the year. The positions affected are 2 Police Patrol Officers, 3 Fire Fighters, a Financial Analyst to work on performance measures and an Economic Development Coordinator. The total is $178,468. 5. Add Fire District 37 revenue based on their notice of assessed valuation increasing revenue to Kent by $156,000. $141,818 is used to hire an Arson Investigator and an Emergency Management Supervisor in mid April. Related capital expenditures are funded out of the Capital Improvement Fund. 6. Correct estimate for beginning fund balance, increasing it by $14,415. 7. Increase the General Fund ending fund balance to $5,354,412 to maintain the 10% reserve after considering the additional expenditures above. Other Funds 8. Add a portable message board for $25,000 for the Public Works department, to be funded out of the Street Fund fund balance. 9. Add Lodging Tax Fund with $175,250 initial revenue with $85,000 set aside for Performing Art Center land and $50,000 for contracts related to tourism and $40,250 for reserve. 10.Add $50,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund to begin acquiring the development rights to agricultural land. Add vehicles and equipment for two new Patrol Officers, Arson Investigator and Emergency Management Supervisor positions. These are funded through existing unappropriated fund balance. 11.Add $66,482 for Senior activity bus acquisition in the Equipment Rental fund. This is for replacement and is funded out of the equipment reserves already accumulated. C. Summary Budget Ordinance Exhibit A combines the Preliminary Budget and the technical adjustments in Exhibit B. The 1999 Final Budget now includes 47.6 new positions for a total of 756.3 FTE's. Council Action: Authorize approval of the 1999 Operating and Capital Budget including technical adjustments as outlined in Exhibit B. PROPERTY TAX- BUDGET RECOMMENDATION -.-Assumes regular levy increase of: 0.85% ADJUSTED Regular levy Increase 1998 Regular Levy was : 15,190,951 1999 Proposed Regular Levy Increase in dollars 129,123 Increase as a percentage 0.85% Plus effects of new construction, improvements and increases in the value of state assessed property 439,059 Plus annexation levy 1,309,923 Plus the refund fund 106,938 "'"Total regular tax levy 17,175,994 Levy for Voted Debt Obligations: 1,832,413 Total Levy request 19,008,407 Levy Rates • 1998 1999 Change Percent General Fund Levy Rate 2.9940 2.9272 (0.0668) -2.28% Voted Issues Levy Rate 0.3620 0.3123 (0.0497) -15.92% Total Levy Rate 3.3560 3.2395 (0.1165) -3.60% Del Mar& Meridian Valley Annexations move to the tax rolls for 1999 budget prptxc.xls 12/2/98 OPTIONS FOR INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY ABOVE THE 0.85% IPD - NOT RECOMMENDED BY OPERATIONS COMMITTEE. Although the Recommended Budget includes only the implicit price deflator property tax increase of .85%, the Council has the authority (with a super majority vote) to increase this dollar amount of taxes in any increment up to the lower of 6.0% or the maximum rate of 3.10. The spreadsheet below shows the cumulative additional amount that could be approved with a supermajority council vote. Levy increase options: Incremental Cumulative Estimated Tax Annual Rate Increase Dollar Levy Per Tax Difference Rate $150,000 Difference Basic Referendum 47 0.85% 129,123 0 2.9090 436.35 0.00 1.00% 22,787 22,787 2.9133 436.99 0.63 1.25% 37,977 60,764 2.9203 438.05 1.69 1.50% 37,977 98,741 2.9274 439.10 2.75 1.75% 37,978 136,719 2.9344 440.16 3.81 2.00% 37,977 174,696 2.9414 441.22 4.86 2.25% 37,977 212,673 2.9485 442.27 5.92 2.50% 37,978 250,651 2.9555 443.33 6.98 2.75% 37,977 288,628 2.9626 444.39 8.03 3.00% 37,978 326,606 2.9696 445.45 9.09 3.25% 37,977 364,583 2.9767 446.50 10.15 3.50% 37,977 402,560 2.9837 447.56 11.21 3.75% 37,978 440,538 2.9908 448.62 12.26 4.00% 37,977 478,516 2.9978 449.67 13.32 4.25% 37,977 516,492 3.0049 450.73 14.38 4.50% 37,978 554,470 3.0119 451.79 15.43 4.75% 37,977 592,447 3.0190 452.85 16.49 5.00% 37,978 630,425 3.0260 453.90 17.55 5.25% 37,977 668,402 3.0331 454.96 18.61 5.50% 37,977 706,379 3.0401 456.02 19.66 5.75% 37,978 744,357 3.0472 457.07 20.72 6.00% 37,977 782,334 3.0542 458.13 21.78 This does not include the annexation levy, estimated to be $1,309,923 using the 0.85% limit factor. The amount will depend on the regular tax levy rate for 1999. prptxc.xls 12/3/98 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to budgets and finance and adopting the final 1999 fiscal year budget. WHEREAS,the tax estimates and budget for the City of Kent, Washington, for the 1999 fiscal year have been prepared and filed as provided by law, and the budget has been printed and distributed, and notice has been published in the official paper of the City of Kent setting the time and place for hearing, and that notice stated that all taxpayers calling at the Office of the City Clerk would be furnished a copy of the 1999 budget; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Budget Adoption. Pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075, the budget for the 1999 fiscal year, as summarized on Exhibit A and as set forth in the 1999 preliminary comprehensive budget, as amended by Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated in this ordinance by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is hereby adopted in the amounts and for the purposes established in that budget as the final budget for City's 1999 fiscal year. SECTION 2. Transmittal. The Finance Director shall transmit a complete copy of the final adopted budget to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. 1 SECTION 3. Adiustments. City Administration shall administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A.33.120. SECTION 4. - Severability. 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. SECTION S. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 11998. APPROVED: day of 11998. PUBLISHED: day of , 1998. 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 VLAW\Ord.0 celBUDGEf6.ORD dm I 2 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 1999 Budget Ordinance Exhibit A Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUND 50,906,574 54,117,802 (3,211,228) 8,565,640 5,354,412 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,721,675 4,607,742 113,933 793,434 907,367 Lodging Tax Fund 175,250 135,000 40,250 40,250 Youth/Teen Programs 508,173 615,837 (107,664) 358,647 250,983 Capital Improvement 6,773,958 8,405,384 (1,631,426) 2,539,646 908,220 Criminal Justice 2,303,854 2,507,020 (203,166) 761,586 558,420 Environmental Mitigation 357,993 395,291 (37,298) 93,613 56,315 Community Block Grant 659,356 659,356 Other Operating Projects 581,988 707,408 (125,420) 125,420 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 1,832,413 1,832,413 55,462 55,462 Councilmanic 5,463,587 5,463,587 Special Assessment 3,113,226 3,174,878 (61,652) 1,897,558 1,835,906 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 9,562,186 9,562,186 Parks Projects 2,243,129 2,158,433 84,696 84,696 Other Projects 1,691,444 1,691,444 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 7,143,029 8,929,788 (1,786,759) 2,978,000 1,191,241 Sewerage 23,636,361 24,161,028 (524,667) 3,015,000 2,490,333 Golf Complex 3,421,300 3,161,262 260,038 260,038 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 2,733,247 3,038,870 (305,623) 2,960,923 2,655,300 Central Services 5,144,749 5,137,880 6,869 61,829 68,698 Fire Equipment 448,781 246,040 202,741 865,621 1,068,362 Facilities Fund 7,570,311 7,561,971 8,340 312,774 321,114 Insurance 6,077,915 6,243,442 (165,527) 3,853,969 3,688,442 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 191,096 209,647 (18,551) 3,129,310 3,110,759 Economic Development Corp 13,935 10,944 2,991 23,943 26,934 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 147,275,530 154,734,653 (7,459,123) 32,392,375 24,933,252 LESS: Internal Service Funds 14,759,705 14,759,705 Other Transfers 15,347,604 15,347,604 TOTAL BUDGET 117,168,221 124.627,344 (7,459,123) 32,392,375 24,933,252 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 1999 Budget Ordinance Exhibit B Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS GENERAL FUND 50,465,054 53,699,564 (3,234,510) 8,551,225 5,316,715 Adjust property tax revenue 285,520 285,520 285,520 Increase Downtown Partnership 17,000 (17,000) (17,000) Add two Patrol Officers (May, Sept) 80,952 (80,952) (80,952) Advance hiring of phased positions 178,468 (178,468) (178,468) Add two Fire positions 156,000 141,818 14,182 14,182 Adjust estimated beginning fund balance 14,415 14,415 Total General Fund 50,906,574 54,117,802 (3,211,228) 8,565,640 5,354,412 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,721,675 4,582,742 138,933 793,434 932,367 Add portable message board 25,000 (25,000) (25,000) Total Street Fund 4,721,675 4,607,742 113,933 793,434 907,367 Lodging Tax Fund Establish initial budget 175,250 135,000 40,250 40,250 Total Lodging Tax Fund 175,250 135,000 40,250 40,250 Youth/Teen Programs 508,173 615,837 (107,664) 358,647 250,983 Capital Improvement 6,773,958 8,237,065 (1,463,107) 2,539,646 1,076,539 Development rights acquisition 50,000 (50,000) (50,000) Vehicle and equipment for new officers 46,044 (46,044) (46,044) Vehicle and equipment for Fire positions 72,275 (72,275) (72,275) Total Capital Improvement Fund 6,773,958 8.405,384 (1,631,426) 2,539,646 908,220 Criminal Justice 2,303,854 2,507,020 (203,166) 761,586 558,420 Environmental Mitigation 357,993 395,291 (37,298) 93,613 56,315 Community Block Grant 659,356 659,356 Other Operating Projects 531,988 657,408 (125,420) 125,420 Lodging Tax Tourism Development 50,000 50,000 Total Other Operating Projects 581,988 707,408 (125,420) 125,420 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 1,832,413 1,832,413 55,462 55,462 Councilmanic 5,463,587 5,463,587 Special Assessment 3,113,226 3,174,878 (61,652) 1,897,558 1,835,906 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 9,562,186 9,562,186 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 1999 Budget Ordinance Exhibit B Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance Parks Projects 2,158,129 2,073,433 84,696 84,696 Performing Arts Land Acquistion 85,000 85,000 Total Parks Projects Fund 2,243,129 2,158,433 84,696 84,696 Other Projects 1,625,000 1,625,000 Add equipment for Patrol officers 16,444 16,444 Development rights acquisition 50,000 50,000 Total Other Projects 1,691,444 1,691,444 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 7,143,029 8,929,788 (1,786,759) 2,978,000 1,191,241 Sewerage 23,636,361 24,161,028 (524,667) 3,015,000 2,490,333 Golf Complex 3,421,300 3,161,262 260,038 260,038 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 2,631,372 2,870,513 (239,141) 2,960,923 2,721,782 Correct Vehicle Replacements 66,482 (66,482) (66,482) Add Police Vehicle 29,600 29,600 Add Fire Vehicles 72,275 72,275 Total Equipment Rental 2,733,247 3,038,870 (305,623) 2,960,923 2,655,300 Central Services 5,144,749 5,137,880 6,869 61,829 68,698 Fire Equipment 448,781 246,040 202,741 865,621 1,068,362 Facilities Fund 7,570,311 7,561,971 8,340 312,774 321.114 Insurance 6,077,915 6,243,442 (165,527) 3,853,969 3,688,442 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 191,096 209,647 (18,551) 3,129,310 3,110,759 Economic Development Corp 13,935 10,944 2,991 23,943 26,934 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 147,275,530 154,734,653 (7,459,123) 32,392,375 24,933,252 LESS: Internal Service Funds 14,759,705 14,759,705 Other Transfers 15,347,604 15,347,604 TOTAL BUDGET 117,168,221 124,627,344 (7,459,123) 32,392,375 24,933,252 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: PACIFIC HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT FSU-96-22 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: A public meeting to consider the final plat application submitted by Pacific Industries, for the Pacific Heights Final Plat . The City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on February 17, 1998 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memo and map 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�i,K -moves, Councilmember seconds to approve the staff ' s recommendation of approval with condi- tions of the Pacific Heights Final Plat and authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 7E ITCITY OF L ',222 Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director December 2, 1998 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR RE: PACIFIC HEIGHTS FINAL PLAT #FSU-96-22 On February 17, 1998, the Kent City Council approved the Hearing Examiner's recommended approval of the Pacific Heights Preliminary Plat (#SU-96-22), a 2.5 acre, 13-lot residential plat. The property is located on the south side of SE 253`d Street, east of 12151 Place SE Staff recommends the City Council approve the Pacific Heights Final Plat #FSU-96-22 with the attached conditions. JPH\mw\P:TSU9622CC.D0C enc cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager '_201(h AVENUE SOUTH I KENT.WASHINGTON 9NO3'_-5895 i TELEPHONE (2511 859.3300 PACIFIC HEIGHTS #SU-96-22 ON DECEMBER 31, 1997, THE KENT HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PACIFIC HEIGHTS #SU-96-22 WITH CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY PLAT. KENT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE PACIFIC HEIGHTS #SU-96-22 PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required by the Determination of Nonsignificance for SEPA checklist #ENV-97-58 for the Pacific Heights Subdivision except that when those SEPA conditions are in conflict with these conditions, these conditions shall control. B. PRIOR TO RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION: 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The public sewer system shall be extended across the north frontage of this subdivision, and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. The public water system shall be extended across the north frontage of this subdivision. C. A drainage system meeting Kent standards. A Detailed Drainage Plan shall be submitted which shows how the 100-year post-developed stormwater runoff from this development will be collected, conveyed, stored, treated and released to the City stormwater drainage system in compliance with the Kent Construction Standards. This plan shall include the water quality treatment facilities for the proposed plat as an off-site water quality treatment system for the Meadow Hills drainage if the off- site detention system is constructed. The Detailed Drainage Plans will include that all downspouts from houses and garages be "tight-lined" to the stormwater conveyance system. (1) The Owner/Subdivider shall construct an on-site or off-site detention/retention pond system in accordance with the Kent Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quantity. The minimum detention storage volume will be that volume required to detain the 100-year, 24- hour design storm while releasing at a rate no greater than 70 percent of the pre-developed 2-year, 24 hour design storm (the release criteria established in the Soos Creek Basin Plan for discharges to Soosette Creek). The pre-development condition shall be assumed to be grass only unless otherwise determined by the Director. Pond side slopes shall be minimized, preferably less than 5H:IV. (2) Roof downspouts for each house and garage shall be directed to Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches meeting the requirements of the Department of Public works including overflow pipes connected to an approved conveyance system. The Detailed Drainage Plans will include an approved detail for the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches, and will provide private stormwater stubouts to each lot for future connection to the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches. The face of the final plat shall contain the following restriction: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS. (3) The required downstream analysis for this development will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, and water quality from the point of discharge from the site downstream a distance of at least one quarter mile, or to the point where stormwater discharges to the east side of 124th Avenue Southeast, whichever is further. (a) This downstream analysis will clearly identify the existing and future capacity of each link in the drainage system for the appropriate downstream reach. (b) Should downstream capacity be insufficient to convey the 25-year peak flow rate, the Owner/Subdivider shall either provide necessary off-site improvements to convey the 2 Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 100-year, 24-hour design peak flow (and easements where necessary), OR further detain/retain stormwater and restrict the release rate of stormwater to ensure that the capacity of the existing conveyance system will not be exceeded. (c) In addition, the Owner/Subdivider's design engineer shall identify all downstream reaches which cannot convey the 100-year, 24-hour design storm without overtopping or pressure flows. (d) Similarly, should an erosion problem be exacerbated by the proposed release conditions, then the Owner/Subdivider will have to further restrict the release of stormwater from this development, or to provide suitable off-site mitigation. (4) The Owner/Subdivider shall submit a Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan for within and surrounding the off-site detention/retention facility to the Kent Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval in conjunction with the approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans. The proposed location of the off-site facility is within an existing wetland buffer; due to the degraded conditions of the buffer, it has high restoration potential. The approved plan shall be attached to the draft engineering plans prior to submittal for City review. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist, or someone else who is qualified by reason of education, training and experience to prepare Wetland Mitigation and Planting Plans, and include the following components: (a) Upland and wetland plantings (as appropriate) that are large in size, diverse in type, and provide dense coverage. (b) Provisions for passive public use, i.e. park bench near the terminus of 121 st Place SE. (c) Protection of all large trees in the project area, most notably the conifer grove. Large trees within the footprint of the approved detention pond/constructed wetland footprint 3 Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 shall be salvaged for replanting (plant salvaging of smaller, native trees and shrubs may also be desirable). (d) A "grass-crete", "grass-pave" or similar reinforced, naturally-paved access road to the existing sanitary manhole, as well as the outlet control structure for the constructed wetland/detention pond. (e) A level spreader device for sheet flow into the wetland. (f) Unique, educational signage (in addition to Kent's standard detention pond facility signage). (g) No net loss of wetland area and function. Any and all proposed impacts to existing wetlands shall be quantified, clearly shown on the plans, and mitigated for. (h) Wildlife-passable, aesthetically-pleasing, fencing to minimize intrusion within the new and existing off-site wetland/detention area (ex. split rail wood). (i) The Owner/Subdivider shall post an assignment of funds for the wetland buffer enhancement in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated cost for construction and materials. (5) The Owner/Subdivider shall execute Declaration of Stormwater Facility Maintenance Covenants prepared by the Property Management Section of the Department of Public Works. (6) Open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system(s) in accordance with Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality. Acceptable stormwater treatment facilities meeting this requirement in their preferred order include: infiltration after pretreatment; biofiltration swales; wet ponds; extended detention ponds; and created wetlands. Alternatives and experimental treatment facilities will be evaluated on a case-by- case basis by the Department of Public Works. (a) The stormwater treatment system shall be within an approved drainage tract. 4 Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 (b) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. (c) The owner/subdivider shall also provide stormwater treatment for the paved surfaces of the Meadow Hills development. (7) A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision which includes provisions for utilities, roadways, retention/detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and a building footpad for each lot. These plans shall be designed to eliminate the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits: phasing of grading on a lot-by-lot basis will not be considered. (8) A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Plan for the entire subdivision which reflects the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above. d. The approved wetland boundaries for the off-site tract shall be surveyed and marked with permanent monuments approved by the City. The survey shall be completed using City of Kent coordinates and the surveyor shall provide the City a copy of the final survey map on 3.5 inch diskette in DXF format. Four copies of the full size (22 inch by 34 inch) wetland map prepared to scale by a licensed professional surveyor which shows the wetland boundary, the approved wetland buffers, and the areas of each are required. These maps will be attached to the copies of the approved Wetland Delineation Report the City will have on file. e. A Detailed Tree Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. Grading Plans can not be approved without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. f. Southeast 253rd Street shall be improved to modified Residential Collector Street Standards and shall extend from its existing easterly terminus to the east boundary of the proposed subdivision. (1) These Street Plans will include Street Lighting Plans, and provisions for a public stormwater drainage system, sanitary sewer, curbs& gutters, sidewalks, and pavement widths consistent with 5 Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards for the classification of each roadway. (2) Southeast 253rd Street, a Residential Collector Street, shall include a minimum half-street width of 24 feet of paved public roadway, with the crown located 18 feet north of the curb and gutter and the five foot sidewalk constructed along the entire south side of Southeast 253rd Street, and will include an approved edge of pavement transition from the end of the existing public street. g. The unnamed plat street shall include a minimum paved surface width of 32 feet, curbs & gutters, and a 5 foot sidewalk around the entire plat street and cul-de-sac. 2. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate all right-of-ways and tracts required by the Director for the public improvements required for this development, including sufficient right-of-way across the entire north frontage for the construction of Southeast 253rd Street, a Residential Collector Street, with a minimum half-street right-of-way width of at least 26.5 feet. 3. In addition to the right-of-way required above, and across the entire subdivision frontage, to provide for a minimum of 24 feet of paved public roadway, curb and gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk. This right-of-way shall also provide enough area for a transition designed to a 25 MPH design speed to the existing improved portion of Southeast 253rd Street located to the west of this subdivision. C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ON ANY LOT IN THE PACIFIC HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SU-96-22). THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER. SHALL: 1. Construct all of the improvements noted in Sections A & B above. 2. The Owner/Subdivider shall execute all agreements required in Sections A & B above. 3. Dedicate five percent (5%) of the total plat area being developed as open space park land or pay a voluntary fee in lieu of dedication as set forth in Ordinance No. 2975. 4. The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval for Detailed Drainage Plans, Detailed Grading Plans AND Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans in 6 Conditions of Approval Pacific Heights #SU-96-22 conformance to the City Construction Standards from the Department of Public Works. 5. The Department of Public Works must approve As-Built Drainage Plans for the entire site prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Washington in conformance to the requirements of Appendix "E" of the City of Kent Construction Standards prior to release of any construction bonds. 6. The owner/ subdivider shall submit a Detailed Tree Plan for the general site, for the roadway, and for all individual lots showing all trees six inches in diameter or greater, and their relationship to any proposed structures. This plan must be approved by the Kent Planning AND Public Works Departments prior to approval and construction of the final roadway design and prior to the issuance of a development permit or any grade and fill permit for any lot. No trees of six inch caliper or greater shall be removed from any lot except through a tree plan approved by the Kent Planning Department. 7. The building footprint on Lot #4 shall be outside the 100 foot well radius as depicted in Exhibit 6. In the event that construction of the proposed development negatively impacts any wells in the vicinity of development such that it is no longer useful for potable water, the applicant shall connect the impacted property to city water at no cost to the impacted property owner. 8. Hours of construction shall be restricted to Monday through Friday between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and Saturday and Sunday between 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. 9. Access to the site shall be from SE 253rd Street. Access from 124th Ave SE shall be prohibited. 10. During construction, the ground shall be watered as often as necessary to control dust. 11. The applicant shall replace any fence that has been damaged or removed during construction. 7 PACIFIC HEIGHTS SU-96-22 A Portion of S.E. 1/4, S.W. 1/4, Sec. 21, Twp. 22 N., Rge. 5 E., W.M. City of Kent, King County, Washington CALE KCSR 1 8 1 076R so +oo _ 81 121 50547 2 3 fL N. LINE. Sw 1/4. NE 1/4, SE 1/4. SW 1/4. SEC 21. T22N. RSE, W.M. P.O.B. - METES r cc C R.35D.19' (PUT) NW5559'W SE.253rd ST. 330.0 L.133.19' _ _ _o_ 145.00_ o i2 E 152.35 ,�j —10' INGRESS/EGRESS tr SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT (SEE NOTE No. 4) O TRACT 'x' 30' EASEM Neo'p7 n PER SNORT PLAT No. 771 04 n 38.71 84.92 32.74 — — — — - Q=89'S4'36 Q=9O05'24" 4' BARB-PARE FEN R=25.00: n_ R=2z5.00. L=39.23 L=39.31 y n I iO 24.5' 24.5' W 4 n n W N N v/ 12 rO ^� N ; o: NBS'55'59"W "1 non H ` 4 'y ^p p m 7 24 1 o i ^ C)xi ry Nko z Q=109*0D'Qa" .F. _ U co 2 a I I R=2 .�)0, ^`O N8 '55'59 W . N L=4 6 ti1\ 68.63 ;� W CUf N85'42'22-E (R) C1 C8 C7 ryp �b yI 2-3 - 100.85 CB 2 } LOT CURVE 6=19'33'11" Q=a1'08'3b" 10 2 Cl 6/J p R=IOO.OQ' p R=51.5pp N 4 C2 J p 3 L=34.13 W L=36.98' / "P B• 7 C3 I i Wlz Jo7 -� 1203 C2 ei ,y"r1. o N81'43'02'W 7 C4 p < n ,� lG1l ��0} �s.s Jg. ^o u1 81.0 (R) N 8 C5 fip9 O9 0 ^'Q=33'S9'45" 12 C7 a6 66 Q=11844'S( z `� R- 13 CB 0 22 i �..,� R=100.00 51.50' L=32.72' 'a—CS 1=30.56' i �0 a 0 ` Q=26'43'17" C3 C4 J> 9 �V�. W 2, z O z R=100.00 � v 2 , W n ^ 5 1�s / L=46.64' S ��, ?J��. t07 3 z j O 1 !Y In ' 8 � YI 14 Of 9.47~ b / N 's � � W V I < 21 " 6.72' / z 7 0 m 8 z _ 3/ _ _ v 1 55.00 "' 117.2T 70.28' 9 81.14' N J Ip8.61' NW56 V'W ',j30AT 4' CHAIN-UNK FENCE FND. REBAR W/CAP LS. No.J I S' PUBLIC 5. LINE. Sw 1 4 9435 'G-4' S 0.23' . W. ODY UTILITY EASEMENT / . HE 1/4. SE 1/4. SW 1/4 SEC 21, T22N. R5E. W.M. OF CALL. CORNER POSITION 10• PRIVATE 20 (SEEENNOTE No.EASEMENT T 2 q'hO 0 MONUU BUILDING SETBACK LINE DELINEATING LIMITS OF 100' RADIUS FROM P AS NO WATER WELL LOCATED ON AIOINING PROPERTY TO SOUTW. J� STAND; IN CAS KC Sp S90S0062 (R) RADIAL — 920601 1 092 (MEAS) MEASU (PLAT) PER P 19 SECTION BREAK VOL. I I n.) W n SUBDMSWN OF CASE 1 g n SECTION 21,No 522N, R-5E, W.M. „ __ SECTION CORNER INDEX ............. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CPA-98-3/ZCA-98-5 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In July the Planning department and the Land Use and Planning Board were asked by the Mayor and City Council to consider amendments to mixed use zoning with regard to multifamily residential development in the GC zoning district . The Land use and Planning Board held a public hearing on October 26, and are recommending no change to the comprehensive plan and zoning code relating to multifamily residential development in mixed use areas . 3 . EXHIBITS : Staff memo, memo from Kevin O'Neill to the Land Use and Planning Board dated 9/28/98 and minutes from the 10/26/98 Land Use and Planning Board public hearing 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Counailmember seconds to approve/disapprove/modify the and Use and Planning Board recommendation of no change to the comprehensive plan and zoning code relating to multif mily residential development in mixed use areas and direct t446 Attorney' s Office to prepare an ordinance f DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 7F CITY OF LI JS V=.,.........JimWhite, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P.Hams,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 8, 1998 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Summary: On October 26, 1998, the Land Use and Planning conducted a public hearing to consider comprehensive plan and zoning amendments relating to mixed use development. After receiving public testimony and discussion, the Board voted to recommend no changes to plan and zoning designations pertaining to mixed use development in the GC zone. Backeround: The comprehensive plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as mixed use. The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, the Planning Department, together with assistance from a consultant developed recommendations for amendments to the zoning code for the General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts. These amendments were adopted by the Council in 1997. The amendments established a mixed use overlay in portions of the GC, CC, and O zones. Within the mixed use overlay in the GC zone, stand-alone multi-family residential development is permitted. In the CC and O mixed use overlay areas, residential uses must be combined with commercial uses. In July 1998, the Mayor and City Council asked the Land Use and Planning Board to consider amendments to the mixed use zoning code amendments with regard to allowing "041h AVENUE SOUTH I KENT_WASHINGTON 9901'-ix9�I TELEPHONE (251)859-3300 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Amendments Relating to Mixed Use Development #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 December 8, 1998 Page 2 stand-along multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district. After discussion of the issue in workshops in August and September, the Board considered plan and zoning amendments proposed by the Planning Department at the October 26 hearing (minutes attached). The Planning Department staff report is attached for your review. Staff recommended changing the plan and zoning designations and permitted uses in the GC zone to be similar to the CC and O zones, meaning that any multi-family residential development would need to be combined with commercial development. Following the public hearing, the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend no changes be made to the mixed use zoning regulations in the GC zone. Staff will be available at the December 8 City Council meeting to present this issue and answer questions. If you have questions prior to the December 8 meeting, please contact me at (253) 850-4799. KON/cw/P APUBLICVMUccmemo.doc cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager. Jim White, Mayor 53) 850-2544 ZC'm - 9$ CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT b' (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM OCTOBER 26, 1998 MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The 1995 Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map (which is attached) in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as mixed use. The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, in 1996 the Planning Department, with assistance from a consultant, developed recommendations for amendments to the zoning code for the General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts. Staff also recommended that these be implemented through the establishment of a mixed use overlay in these three zoning districts. These proposed the Land Use and Planning Board considered amendments in several workshops, then in public hearing held in October and November of 1996. The Board's recommendation was then considered by the City Council Planning Committee and then the full Council in early 1997. On May 7, 1997, the Council adopted Ordinances No. 3345 and 3346, which amended the permitted uses and development standards in the GC, CC, and O zones, and established a mixed use overlay. The comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill (along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, multi-family residential uses be permitted, while on East Hill, residential uses be allowed only in conjunction '204th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHmrON 9803'-5,"/TELEPHONE ('_53)S59-3300 Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 2 with a mixed use development. Therefore, the proposed amendments and the subsequent ordinances distinguished between the mixed use areas in the valley, which are zoned predominantly GC, with the mixed use areas on east hill, which are predominantly zoned CC or O. In the GC zone, multi-family residential uses are allowed as a principally permitted use in the mixed use overlay; in the CC and O zones, multi-family residential is only allowed in conjunction with a mixed use development. The adopted code amendments specified that in the CC and O zones that at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of a mixed use development with residential uses must be commercial. The Planning Department and the Land Use and Planning Board have been asked by the Mayor and City Council to consider amendments to the mixed use zoning code amendments with regard to multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district. This issue was discussed at workshops with the Board on August 10 and September 28. As was discussed at the September 28 workshop, in order to amend the zoning code provisions, the comprehensive plan must also be amended, since the Growth Management Act requires that zoning regulations be consistent with and implement comprehensive plan policies. On September 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1513 (attached) declaring an emergency in order for the Land Use and Planning Board to concurrently consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code regarding mixed use development in the GC zone. At the September 28 workshop, the Land Use Board voted to hold a public hearing to consider plan and zoning amendments for mixed use development on October 26. This memorandum will outline the history of the existing goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and the adopted zoning amendments with regard to mixed use development. The memo will also propose potential amendments to both the zoning code and comprehensive plan with regard to multi- family residential development in the mixed use overlay in the GC zoning district. These issues will be presented and discussed for the Board's consideration at the October 26 public hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES As stated, the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. Among these goals and policies are the ones outlined below. Goal LU-6 -Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development. Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-density housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional sprawling development patterns. Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 3 Policy LU-6.2 - Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand- alone basis in designated areas. (emphasis added) The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Furthermore, when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focussed a large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focussed new growth in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed use development locates residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit. In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore, the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies, along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for single-family development, and accessory dwelling units. (A report regarding housing supply issues in King County as a whole is attached for your review.) On the land use plan map, there is a distinction between mixed use areas in the valley and on East Hill. The distinction between the two is described in the Land Use Element of the plan on page 4-28: "There are two mixed use designations: one allows multifamily residential as a permitted use, along with retail and office uses; the other allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." The amendments to the zoning code for mixed use adopted in 1997 were done in order to be consistent with these plan policies. If the Land Use and Planning Board elects to require that residential development in the mixed use areas in the valley be combined with commercial uses, the land use plan map and above- referenced policies need to be amended to reflect this policy change. MIXED USE ZONING PROVISIONS As stated previously, the process to implement the applicable goals and policies of the comprehensive plan for mixed use development began in 1996. With the help of an urban design/architecture consultant, Mark Hinshaw, staff developed several alternative ways to implement changes to the zoning map and zoning code, including changing the permitted uses Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 4 for the GC, CC, and O zones outright, rezoning the mixed use areas to a new zoning district, or creating a mixed use overlay, whereby code amendments would be targeted to specific areas. As stated, the ordinances adopted by the City Council established a mixed use overlay within portions of the GC, CC, and O zoning districts. Within the overlay, residential uses may be developed on a stand-alone basis in the valley, which is generally zoned GC, and in a mixed use development on East Hill, which is zoned CC or O. As amended by Ordinance No. 3345, mixed use development is defined as follows: "Mixed use development shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. Provided that the aforementioned requirements are met, a mixed use development may include two (2) or more separate buildings. Provided further that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as defined in Kent City Code 15.02.170 be a permitted commercial use. The residential component of any mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy of the commercial component." (Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code) In addition to establishing an overlay and amending permitted uses, Ordinance #3345 also amended development standards within the overlay, and requires design review for projects with a residential component. The amended development standards within the GC mixed use overlay area are identical to the development standards for the CC and O mixed use overlays, with the exception of site coverage and off-street parking (see attached mixed use overlay development standards in Section 15.04.200). Generally, the amended development standards were intended to provide common ways to regulate both commercial and residential development through the concept of floor area ratio, and to provide incentives to undertake mixed use development. As stated, the differences in the mixed use overlay between the GC zone in the valley and the CC and O zones on East Hill were based on the distinctions made in the comprehensive plan. If the Land Use and Planning Board seeks to require that any residential development in the mixed use areas be combined with commercial use, then it would be appropriate to amend the provisions of the GC zone so they are similar to the CC and O zones. This would be applicable to both permitted uses and development standards. ANALYSIS During the discussions of the mixed use zoning amendments, there was a discussion about "horizontal" mixed use and `vertical' mixed use. Horizontal mixed use refers to mixed uses within the same building (such as commercial use on the ground floor with residential development above), while vertical mixed use refers to a mix of uses located side by side, as opposed to in the same building. The adopted zoning allowed residential uses in either configuration, with the proviso that in the mixed use overlay on East Hill, residential uses had to be combined with commercial uses in the same development. The rationale for allowing stand- alone residential uses in the valley was to promote the concept of vertical mixed uses (allow Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 5 housing in areas with commercial uses) and given the area's proximity to downtown. However, if the ultimate goal of mixed use development is to combine commercial and residential uses, then it is reasonable to require that each mixed use development on its own provide a combination of uses, whether those uses be combined in a single building or in several different buildings on the same site. In addition, if permitted uses are to be standardized in the GC, CC, and O mixed use areas, then development standards should also be standardized to be consistent throughout the three zoning districts. It is also important to note that requiring residential development in mixed use areas to be combined with commercial development does not eliminate the ability to construct residential development. In fact, the development standards in the mixed use overlay still reward mixed use projects, and residential projects in particular. Therefore, the overall comprehensive plan goal of providing adequate capacity to meet housing supply needs, which was discussed earlier, can still be met under the amended proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order to require that residential development within the mixed use overlay be done only in conjunction with commercial uses, thus mandating that each development is of a mixed use nature, the staff recommends the following comprehensive plan and zoning amendments. Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. Amend the land use plan map in the Land Use Element to designate the areas in the valley adjacent to downtown from "Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use — Limited Multi-family", as shown on the map attached as Attachment B. 2. Amend the description of the mixed use designation on Page 4-28 of the Land Use Element as follows: "The mixed use designation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in the same area. retail and a ffiee uses; the other- ..11eA's The mixed use designation allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." 3. Amend Policy LU-6.2 of the Land Use Element to read as follows: "Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development . Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments October 26, 1998 Page 6 Zoning Code Amendments 1. Amend the list of permitted uses in the General Commercial zone outlined in Section 15.04.020 and Section 15.04.030 (attached) to allow multi-family residential uses in the mixed use overlay only when constructed in conjunction with a mixed use development. 2. Amend the mixed use overlay development standards in the GC-MU zone outlined in Section 15.04.200 to be consistent with the development standards for the CC-MU and O-MU zoning districts. As noted earlier, mixed use development is defined as requiring at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of a mixed use development to be commercial use, and also requires that the commercial component of a project be approved prior to the approval of the residential component. CONCLUSION Staff will be presenting the items outlined in this memo at the October 26 meeting of the Land Use and Planning Board, and will be available to answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 850-4799. KON:pm MUAMLUPHDOC cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Attachments: Land Use Plan Map Resolution No. 1513 Sections 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 of the zoning code(permitted uses) Section 15.04.200 of the zoning code(mixed use overlay) King County's Housing Supply Crisis—The Effects on Human Services CITY OF jEM IT =R,.......Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 830-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #CPA-98-3/gZCA-98-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION The 1995 Kent Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas in the city for mixed use development, meaning development which would combine residential and commercial uses. The Land Use Plan Map (which is attached) in the comprehensive plan designates specific areas on West Meeker Street, North Central Avenue, and 104th Avenue SE as mixed use The plan also contains several goals and policies which support mixed use development. In order to implement these policies, in 1996 the Planning Department, with assistance from a consultant, developed recommendations for amendments to the zoning code for the General Commercial (GC), Communiry Commercial (CC), and Office (0) zoning districts. Staff also recommended that these be implemented through the establishment of a mixed use overlay in these three zoning districts. These proposed the Land Use and Planning Board considered amendments in several workshops, then in public hearing held in October and November of 1996. The Board's recommendation was then considered by the City Council Planning Committee and then the full Council in early 1997. On May 7, 1997, the Council adopted Ordinances No. 3345 and 3346, which amended the permitted uses and development standards in the GC, CC, and 0 zones, and established a mixed use overlay. The comprehensive plan makes a distinction between the mixed use areas located in the valley (along West Meeker and North Central Avenue) and the mixed use area on East Hill (along 104th Avenue SE). The plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, multi-family - residential uses be permitted, while on East Hill, residential uses be allowed only in conjunction with a mixed use development. Therefore, the proposed amendments and the subsequent -0 Lh AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.N'ASHINGTON 4n017-S8v5;TELEPHONE i.Sli Subject: ##CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments September 28, 1998 Page 2 ordinances distinguished between the mixed use areas in the valley, which are zoned predominantly GC, with the mixed use areas on east hill, which are predominantly zoned CC or _ O. In the GC zone, multi-family residential uses are allowed as a principally permitted use in the mixed use overlay; in the CC and O zones, multi-family residential is only allowed in conjunction with a mixed use development. The adopted code amendments specified that at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of the development must be commercial. The Planning Department and the Land Use and Planning Board have been asked by the Mayor and City Council to consider amendments to the mixed use zoning code amendments with regard- to multi-family residential development in the GC zoning district. This issue was discussed at the August 10 Board workshop. In addition, in order to amend the zoning code provisions, the comprehensive plan must also be amended, since the Growth Management Act requires that zoning regulations be consistent with and implement comprehensive plan policies. On September 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1513 (attached) declaring an emergency in order for the Land Use and Planning Board to concurrently consider amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning code regarding mixed use development in the GC zone. This memorandum will outline the history of the existing goals and policies in the comprehensive plan and the adopted zoning amendments with regard to mixed use development. The memo will also suggest potential amendments to both the zoning code and comprehensive plan with regard to multi-family residential development in the mixed use overlay in the GC zoning district. These issues will be discussed in more detail at the September 28 workshop. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES As stated, the Land Use Plan Map designates the areas outlined on the attached maps for mixed use development. There are also several policies in the Land Use Element which support mixed use development, and the establishment of mixed use activity centers. Among these goals and policies are the ones outlined below. Goal LU-6 - Designate activity centers in portions of the city and in the annexation area. Allow in these areas a mix of retail, office, and residential development. Policy LU-6.1 - Locate activity centers in areas which currently contain concentrations of commercial development with surrounding medium-density housing. Intensify these areas to support transit and to curtail additional sprawling development patterns. Policy LU-6.2 - Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential - uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development or on a stand- alone basis in designated areas. (emphasis added) The decision to allow for mixed use development in the comprehensive plan was driven by several factors. In the public participation process used during the formation of the plan, citizens at community forums expressed support for the concept of mixed use development. Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments September 28, 1998 Page 3 Furthermore, when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan was done, citizens were asked to evaluate three land use alternatives: continuation of the existing plan, a plan which focused a large percentage of future growth in the downtown area, and a plan which focused new growth in several mixed use centers, including the downtown and the areas shown on the attached map. The mixed use plan alternative was strongly favored over the other two. Mixed use development locates residential and commercial uses in closer proximity to one another, therefore creating more vibrant areas and promoting transit. In addition, one of the biggest challenges that the City faced during the comprehensive planning process was finding ways to accommodate its projected housing target. Many of the residentially-zoned areas within the city are already developed, and there was a real resistance on the part of the community and the City Council to create more housing opportunities by zoning single-family areas to multi-family, which is how growth was accommodated in the 1980's in Kent. Therefore, the plan outlines several strategies for accommodating more housing without significantly changing the zoning in single-family areas. Mixed use development is one of these strategies, along with allowing smaller single-family lot sizes, more flexible development standards for single-family development, and accessory dwelling units. On the land use plan map, there is a distinction between mixed use areas in the valley and on East Hill. The distinction between the two is described in the Land Use Element of the plan on page 4-28: "There are two mixed use designations: one allows multifamily residential as a permitted use, along with retail and office uses; the other allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." The amendments to the zoning code for mixed use adopted in 1997 were done in order to be consistent with these plan policies. If the Land Use and Planning Board wishes to require that residential development in the mixed use areas in the valley be combined with commercial uses, or pursue other amendments to how mixed use development is regulated, the land use plan map and above-referenced policies should be amended. MIXED USE ZONING PROVISIONS - As stated previously, the process to implement the applicable goals and policies of the comprehensive plan for mixed use development began in 1996. With the help of an urban design/architecture consultant, Mark Hinshaw, staff developed several alternative ways to implement changes to the zoning map and zoning code, including changing the permitted uses for the GC, CC, and 0 zones outright, rezoning the mixed use areas to a new zoning district, or creating a mixed use overlay, whereby code amendments would be targeted to specific areas. The staff reports that went to the Land Use and Planning Board and City Council are attached for your reference. As stated, the ordinances adopted by the City Council established a mixed use overlay within portions of the GC, CC, and 0 zoning districts. Within the overlay, residential uses may be developed on a stand-alone basis in the valley, which is generally zoned GC, and in a mixed use development on East Hill, which is zoned CC or 0. As amended by Ordinance No. 3345, mixed use development is defined as follows: "Mixed use development shall mean two (2) or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site. Provided that the aforementioned requirements are met, a mixed use development Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments September 28, 1998 Page 4 may include two (2) or more separate buildings. Provided further that at least twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area, as defined in Kent City Code 15.02.170 be a permitted - commercial use. The residential component of any mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the permitting and/or occupancy of the commercial component." (Section 15.02.260, Kent Zoning Code) In addition, the ordinance amended development standards within the overlay, and requires design review for projects with a residential component. As stated, the differences in the mixed use overlay between the GC zone in the valley and the CC and 0 zones on East Hill were based on the distinctions made in the comprehensive plan. If the Land Use and Planning Board seeks to require that any residential development in the mixed use areas to be combined with commercial use, then it may be appropriate to amend the provisions of the GC zone so that they are similar to the CC and 0 zones. ANALYSIS During the discussions of the mixed use zoning amendments, there was a discussion about "horizontal" mixed use and "vertical" mixed use. Horizontal mixed use refers to mixed uses within the same building (such as commercial use on the ground floor with residential development above), while vertical mixed use refers to a mix of uses located side by side, as opposed to in the same building. The adopted zoning allowed residential uses in either configuration, with the proviso that in the mixed use overlay on East Hill, residential uses be combined with commercial uses in the same development. The rationale for allowing stand- alone residential uses in the valley was to promote the concept of vertical mixed uses (allow housing in areas with commercial uses) and given the area's proximity to downtown. However, if the ultimate goal of mixed use development is to combine commercial and residential uses, then it is reasonable to require that each mixed use development on its own provide a combination of uses, whether those uses be combined in a single building or in several different buildings on the same site. In order to require that residential development within the mixed use overlay be done only in conjunction with commercial uses, thus mandating that each development be of a mixed use nature, the Board may wish to consider the following comprehensive plan and zoning amendments. Comprehensive Plan Amendments L Amend the land use plan map in the Land Use Element to designate the areas in the valley adjacent to downtown from "Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use — Limited Multi-family", as shown on the map attached as Attachment B. _ 2. Amend the description of the mixed use designation on Page 4-28 of the Land Use Element as follows: "The mixed use designation allows retail, office, and multifamily residential uses together in the same area residential as a r"p -:» a aleng . t Fet&il a cr the 1 allews The mixed use desiznafion allows multifamily residential uses only if they are part of a mixed use development." Subject: #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 Mixed Use Amendments September 28, 1998 Page 5 3. Amend Policy LU-6.2 of the Land Use Element to read as follows: "Allow residential uses in activity centers. Develop residential uses as part of a commercial area in a mixed use development Zoning Code Amendments 1. Amend the list of permitted uses in the General Commercial zone outlined in Section 15.04.020 and Section 15.04.030 (attached) to allow multi-family residential uses in the mixed use overlay only when constructed in conjunction with a mixed use development. As noted earlier, mixed use development is defined as requiring at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of a mixed use development to be commercial use, and also requires that the commercial component of a project be approved prior to the approval of the residential component. These amendments would amend the plan and zoning in accordance with mixed use zoning in the GC zoning district, as requested by the Mayor. If the Board wishes to recommend other changes to these regulations, including the mixed use overlay or the development standards adopted for the mixed use overlay, these can be discussed at the workshop. The development standards, which are now part of the mixed use overlay, are outlined in Section 15.04.200 of the zoning code, which is also attached. CONCLUSION Staff will be presenting the items outlined in this memo at the September 28 workshop meeting of the Land Use and Planning Board, and will be available to answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the September 28 meeting, please contact me at 850-4799. cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Attachments: Land Use Plan Map Resolution No. 1513 Sections 15.04.020 and 15.04.030 of the zoning code (permitted uses) Section 15.04.200 of the zoning code (mixed use overlay) April 1, 1997 memorandum to the City Council October 28, 1996 memorandum to the Land Use and Planning Board ` CITY OF ZQ IL-VII T Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(153) 850-1544 James P.Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing October 26, 1998 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Brad Bell at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 26, 1998, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Brad Bell, Chair Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair Steve Dowell Ron Harmon Jon Johnson David Malik Terry Zimmerman PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to approve the May 26, 1998 minutes. MOTION carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director, Jim Harris announced that upcoming elections for the Land Use and Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair would be held at the November 23 public hearing meeting. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None 220 Jth AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 9903_' i895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 2 #CPA-98-3/#ZCA-98-5 AMENDMENTS RELATING TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner Kevin ONeill stated that mixed-use zoning has been discussed at the Land Use and Planning Board workshops in July and September. He said that the City Council adopted a comprehensive plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act in 1995. Mr. O'Neill explained that the comprehensive plan supports mixed-use development both in the land use plan and the goals and policies of the land use element. He defined mixed use as development where commercial and residential uses can be combined in the same zoning district. Mr. ONeill indicated the areas within Kent that are currently designated as mixed-use. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff, along with a consultant, prepared zoning code amendments to implement the comprehensive plan and policies relating to mixed-use development. He stated that the City Council adopted the ordinances after hearings held by the Land Use and Planning Board in November 1996 which did the following: • established mixed-use overlay, and • amended the permitted uses and development standards within that overlay. He explained that the City Council adopted an overlay provision whereby the zoning code amendments would apply only to certain areas within the areas designated as mixed-use in the comprehensive plan. Mr. O'Neill explained this as a new concept of allowing residential development to existing commercial areas. Mr. ONeill spoke at length on the criteria that the Board and the Council looked at in determining where the mixed-use overlay areas should be applied and how the permitted uses were changed within those overlay areas. Mr. O'Neill explained that development standards were developed to establish a way in which commercial and residential development can be regulated in a common manner. Mr. ONeill explained that the Mayor and City Council asked the Land Use and Planning Board and planning staff to consider amendments to zoning as it relates to the way mixed-use development is regulated in the (GC) General Commercial zoning district, .and to consider if multifamily residential development in the GC zone should be required to be combined with a commercial use, similar to the way it is regulated on East Hill. Mr. ONeill explained that the Mayor's request would also necessitate amending the comprehensive plan map and policies. Mr. ONeill explained that mixed-use is used as a strategy to pinpoint areas that could accommodate future housing development with the benefit of combining residential and commercial uses in close proximity to each other permitting closer access to services, employment and transportation alternatives. He stated that every city in the county is obligated to accommodate a certain number of future housing units over a 20-year time frame as indicated in the comprehensive plan. Mr. ONeill said staff is requesting consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan and the zoning code in order to standardize the mixed-use classification as opposed to having two separate and distinct classifications. He spoke at length on how staff would work to amend the zoning regulations. Mr. ONeill stated that it is staffs recommendation to standardize development within the three mixed-use overlay zones. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 3 Mr. O'Neill described how development standards differed within the three mixed-use zones of General Commercial, Office and Community Commercial. He explained that development standards include floor area ratios, site coverage, building height, setbacks and off street parking. Mr. O'Neill explained that mixed-use overlay provides incentives for mixed-use development as it increases commercial site coverage, for example, from 40% for stand-alone commercial to: • 60% in (0) Office and (CC) Community Commercial zones, and • 75% in (GC) General Commercial zones. Board member Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. ONeill to estimate how many housing units have been developed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan and mixed-use overlay in the Valley and on East Hill. Mr. O'Neill stated that he is aware of only one 160-unit housing project developed on North Central Avenue. Mr. O'Neill responded to Ms. Zimmerman's concerns about developers being deterred from developing property based on requiring an office or other type of commercial component combined with a housing complex by stating that he felt development that combines uses is a challenge but not detrimental. Board member Steve Dowell asked Mr. O'Neill whether a building currently under construction would become a legal nonconforming use if the proposed amendments were approved. Mr. O'Neill stated that if the project was an existing stand-alone residential project in the GC zone, the development is and would continue to be legal but nonconforming, if the proposed amendments were adopted. Mr. Dowell asked that if a property owner wanted to improve or add to their units within a General Commercial zone would he need to comply with current development standards as they are approved or with the development standards in place at the time of the original request? Mr. O'Neill responded that any expansion needs to comply with new standards. The only way to allow expansion of a non-conforming use is through a conditional use permit, as allowed by the zoning code. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that financing for these projects would prompt additional scrutiny as a legal nonconforming use than these projects would if they were permitted outright. Mr. Dowell stated that developers would confront difficulty in obtaining financing for future improvements or additions. They would also experience difficulty in complying with the code requirements of the GC zone as they were before mixed-use zoning was in effect. Ms. Zimmerman requested clarification of her understanding that the Growth Management Act requires the City of Kent and all municipalities to make room for the growth of more residential units within the city limits. She questioned if the effect of the zoning change is to diminish the number of multifamily residential units built in Kent and will it have an effect on the city's ability to accommodate growth. Mr. O'Neill concurred that this was an important question and explained that the intent of applying mixed-use in the first place was, in part, to increase the potential housing supply of the city. Mr. i Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 4 O'Neill said that when analyzing the city's zoning capacity, the total number of units that the city can accommodate is compared to the total land area the city has. Mr. O'Neill stated that accommodating the city's targets would be difficult without incorporating mixed-use development. Mr. O'Neill said that the City Council was compelled to look at mixed use as a means to accommodate growth as well as combining residential and commercial uses to create a more lively urban fabric. Mr. ONeill emphasized that the proposed amendment still allows for residential construction within a mixed-use configuration. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously Manuela Ginnett, 1215 Central Avenue South, Suite 209, Kent, WA 98032 stated that she works with the South King County Multi-Service Center which provides emergency shelter, transitional housing and low-income housing apartments for homeless individuals and families. She voiced concern that affordable, low income housing options would diminish as a result of developers being required to develop housing with a commercial component. Ms. Ginnett stated that she believes the homeless situation in Kent could escalate. Pat Crockett, 10326 Rainier Avenue South, Seattle, WA stated that she owns the creamery building located at the comer of First and Meeker Street in Kent. She questioned staff if the intention of the proposal was to create a community where manufacturing, business, schools and housing would be combined within the same locality. Ms. Crockett asked what methods are used to rent both residential and commercial property simultaneously. Board member Terry Zimmerman read a letter from Catholic Community Services which was entered into the record as Exhibit 1. The letter communicated concern that the amendment to the City's comprehensive plan could mean less affordable housing within Kent. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carved unanimously. Mr. Dowell stated that focusing on growth in the valley makes sense for businesses and for the rail use. He stated his believe that approving the amendments before the Board relating to mixed-use would mean that the city would be downzoning. Board member Ron Harmon questioned Steve Dowell's definition of downzoning. He stated that his understanding was that mixed-use intent is to combine commercial and residential development and that currently the city does allow for stand-alone development. Mr. Dowell explained that under current zoning you have stand-alone, commercial or a combination of both types of development. He explained that under the requested amended plan you lose the stand -alone portion for residential development and would be required to combine commercial and residential development. Mr. Dowell stated that in effect you have less space on your property for residential development. This form of development would be financially unfeasible. Mr. Dowell expressed downzoning as a method of restricting what can be developed. 1 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 5 Planning Director James Harris concurred with Mr. Dowell's definition of downzoning. He elaborated upon Mr. Dowell's definition saying if a developer came into the Planning Department they currently have options in the General Commercial versus Mixed-Use zoning districts. Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr. Dowell's statements. She explained that she represents the Land Use and Planning Board on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Kent Rail Station. Ms. Zimmerman stated that it is significant for the City to support the new rail station as it emerges in Kent by working towards making downtown vital and connected to the new rail station by promoting mixed-use in the downtown area of the valley. Board member Harmon concurred with establishing mixed-use in the downtown area. Board member Jon Johnson stated that he concurs with and supports Mr. Dowell's motion to encourage more housing in the valley, with the intention of drawing people closer to their center of work and alternate transit facilities. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend to the Council to leave the mixed-use zoning as it currently exists without changes. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom requested clarification from Chair Bell that since the Board has made a determination to recommend to the City Council that there not be changes in the zoning for mixed-use, that the Board would concurrently reflect no change to the comprehensive plan. Chair Bell stated that they concurred with this request. #ZCA-984 RETAIL USE IN (DCE) DISTRICT Chair Bell described this as a request to clarify permitted uses in the pedestrian overlay of the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and extend the pedestrian overlay to portions of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) district. Chair Bell presented a memo from City Attorney Roger Lubovich addressing a conflict of interest that Chair Bell is experiencing with this issue. It was entered into the record as Exhibit 2. Chair Bell stated that he has a conflict of interest with this issue and could personally benefit depending on the ruling of the board. He stated that Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Evezich has advised him that according to the RCW's this does not preclude him from running the meeting, but does preclude him from voting or being involved in deliberations. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich clarified that the Land Use and Planning Board's Bylaws addresses that the Vice Chair can act when the Chair is absent from a meeting. Ms. Evezich stated that the specific statute in question is RCW 35, Chapter 35: 22, Subsection 030. Ms. Evezich defined this statute as indicating that "if there is a conflict of interest, the appointing authority of the municipality may appoint an alternate in place of the person who needs to excuse themselves". Ms. Evezich said for this purpose Leona Orr, President of the Council and Mayor Pro Tem has authorized such an appointment as needed. Chair Bell recommended Vice Chair Woodford as designate to reside over the meeting. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 6 Planner Linda Phillips said that planning staff received a request from the Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) to: • review the pedestrian use overlay that exists in the city's zoning code, • to review and clarify the permitted uses in that overlay, • to review the uses that are not permitted • to extend the commercial use overlay into the (DCE) Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone on streets directly adjacent to the Downtown Commercial zone. Ms. Phillips described the relationship between Downtown Commercial and Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning. She stated that both zones were established as a result of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, as areas where mixed use would be allowed with few restrictions on development. Ms. Phillips explained that "enterprise" is meant to encourage a variety of mixed-use including residential, office, retail and service oriented uses. Ms. Phillips stated that this proposal addresses a special overlay district. There are several streets within the (DC) Downtown Commercial zone that are considered appropriate for a special limited mix of uses intended to encourage intense pedestrian use and offer interesting activities intended to entice people from their cars. Ms. Phillips stated that the intent of this proposal is to extend the pedestrian overlay to an area along Fourth Avenue north of Harrison Street, continuing east along Smith Street to the east side of Railroad Avenue. She said the overlay would continue from Railroad Avenue and extend to Titus Street; including the side streets of Meeker to Central and from Railroad to Central. The overlay would include the side streets from the Burlington Northern Railroad on Gowe Street to Railroad Avenue. Ms. Phillips stated that this proposal is consistent with the design review that addresses development standards relating to design as well as the design overlay along Railroad Avenue and the adjoining side street. Ms. Phillips stated the proposal remains consistent along Fourth Avenue with very intense pedestrian streets but not along Smith Street from Fourth Avenue to Railroad. Ms. Phillips explained that the proposal is intended to increase retail space and generate tax revenue within the DC and DCE areas. She stated that the language within the zoning code would remain the same with the exception of"residential" as it applies to retail use. Ms. Phillips referred to the Draft Revision of Chapter 15.04 District Regulations in outlining the substance of the proposal including deletions and additions to the text. Ms. Phillips stated that mortuaries and stand-alone residential multifamily housing would be eliminated within the DC zone. Ms. Phillips said that the KDP proposal was reviewed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and'found to be consistent. She said that one of the policies: • promotes and encourages retail uses that serve the residential population in and adjacent to the downtown area, and • promotes orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen those districts, ti Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 7 • to minimize cost associated with extension of facilities, and • to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. Ms Phillips stated that these points are important in that retail and service uses attract a similar customer base. A synergy develops so that retail use becomes stronger and more viable where retail and service uses are found together. Ms. Phillips said that staff recommends approval of#ZCA-98-4 regulatory review request with the exception of the area located along Fourth Street north of Harrison and Smith Street from Fourth Avenue, east to Railroad Avenue. These streets are high traffic arterials that might not attract the same kind of pedestrian retail and service uses that the other proposed streets would. Vice Chair Sharon Woodford questioned why the north side of Harrison Street is not included as part of the proposal. Ms. Woodford stated that the north side of Harrison Street is more suitably designed for pedestrian usage than Smith Street. Ms. Phillips stated that Harrison Street is definitely related to the DC pedestrian use overlay area. She stated that staff would not object to the inclusion of Harrison Street. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she understood that the proposed changes indicated that buildings within the downtown commercial district must maintain the first floor area for retail uses and that the second floor levels and higher would be utilized for other types of office use. Ms. Phillips explained that KDP's proposal does not disallow residential or office usage on the same floor of a one or more story building, as long as there is useable space that will provide for pedestrian retail or a service business adjacent to the street and the sidewalk. Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Bruce Anderson, Post Office Box 3821, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that he is a property owner in the downtown core. He said that he recently built the Meeker Street Law Building located at Fourth and Meeker. This building was designed to house two law firms with retail space provided on the ground level. He stated that he aware of the process and problems encountered in creating a pedestrian oriented retail building with service use. Mr. Anderson stated that a pedestrian oriented building creates a synergism and value that property owners look for in a downtown core. Mr. Anderson said that he has service oriented and retail tenants coexisting in most of his projects with 80% retail, 10% office and 10% industrial. Mr. Anderson stated that the Kent Planning Department had told him that a law firm would not be considered a pedestrian oriented retail use. Mr. Anderson stated that he felt that this information was an anomaly because in developing a downtown core you are attempting to create a synergism in the downtown area. He said in the normal development of economics in a robust core you need to bring people into downtown and retail will follow. Mr. Anderson said that office could take over ground floor levels during initial stages of a downtown core's development. During the natural progression of development in downtown cores, office personnel and clientele will generate more retail business. Retail tenants will move in and displace the office space moving them up a floor or two. Mr. Anderson said that if Kent attempts to limit development to some selective retail uses in the downtown floor areas of these buildings it would impose a tremendous risk on developers.. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Anderson spoke at length on the logistics and cost factors involved in developing business in Kent under the current Planning department standards. He stated that by forcing retail tenants into the core and forcing developers to build out retail space he does not believe that there is enough synergism in Kent's market place to warrant the rental rates necessary to break even on the development of new construction in the downtown area. Mr. Anderson expressed his desire to see the city open its market place to less restrictive uses in the downtown area. Alan Gray, 112 Railroad Avenue South, Kent,WA stated that he is a Certified Public Accountant by profession with his business located in downtown Kent. As a property owner he disagrees with the aspect of excluding professional, administrative and financial offices from the ground floor levels. Mr. Gray stated that he currently works within an area that houses a mix of service and retail oriented businesses that coexist well together. Mr. Gray said that restricting the use of buildings along Railroad Avenue would be prohibitive as it would: 1) eliminate the possibility of selling his building to an owner who would want to turn it into a retail establishment 2) necessitate that a new owner compensate for the additional cost to turn the business from an office setup to a retail establishment and 3) create the potential for more vacant retail space in downtown Kent. This is reflected by the Dragness Office Supply store, which has been vacant for one and one-half years at the comer of Meeker and Railroad. Mr. Gray stated that if this proposal is accepted, a grandfather clause needs to be implemented to protect established businesses. Bill Stewart, 28203 160th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he is a property owner in downtown Kent. Mr. Stewart concurred with the first two speakers whereby restricting uses in downtown would be detrimental to the vitality of downtown and limit the opportunities for landowners to rent their properties. Pat Williams, 21205 110th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she has owned a retail business in Kent for 22 years. She voiced her concerns over maintaining downtown as a pedestrian friendly area. She expressed appreciation for the new retail building on the comer of Fourth and Meeker. Ms. Williams said that the one drawback to the building is that it creates a wall along Meeker Street without an accessible entrance to the building, limiting pedestrian appeal with the exception of Starbucks. Ms. Williams voiced her concern that if businesses are not accessible at the ground level, this will destroy the vitality of businesses within the downtown area. Linda Johnson, 16605 264th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she represents the Kent Downtown Partnership and facilitated the proposal under discussion. Ms. Johnson explained that the proposal was generated as a result of the dead spaces occurring in the core area of downtown. Ms. Johnson symbolically compared downtown Kent to a shopping center such as South Center but owned by many property owners. She stated that the value of downtown is probably triple what the value of South Center is in infrastructure, streets, the actual businesses and residences as well as the activity generated in Kent. However, in a shopping center there is no dead space. There are people who manage the facilities for the right tenant mix to attract people. Ms. Johnson explained that the intent of KDP's proposal is to enable pedestrians to effectively utilize the entire district in the downtown area. Ms. Johnson addressed Ms. Woodford's concern about the deletion of Harrison Street. She stated that Harrison Street was inadvertently left off the proposal Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 9 and she concurs that Harrison Street should be included as part of the proposal. Ms. Johnson concurs with Planning staff that Smith Street is a high traffic arterial and may not attract pedestrian retail and pedestrian service uses. Ms. Johnson said that it has been difficult to fill the downtown area with vital business but has observed that Kent is engaging better quality business each time there is a turnover. She voiced concerned about the need to have businesses grandfathered to allow a merchant to remain in the existing business. Ms. Phillips responded to Ms. Johnson's concerns by ensuring that if a business remains in its location and remain current on renewing their leases, they will be allowed to stay. Ms. Johnson reiterated that the proposal recognizes that service and office oriented uses are very important to the downtown area.. Jim Bitondo, 106 East Titus Street, Kent, WA stated that he is a property owner and has operated a business in Kent for 18 years. He concurs with the facts that the other property owners have brought forth. Mr. Bitondo said that he is in favor of the Kent Downtown Partnership proposal as presented by planning staff and Linda Johnson. Mr. Bitondo explained that Kent was fairly derelict 18 years ago until the City Planning department stepped in and esthetically changed the image of downtown with the use of landscape trees, street design contouring and street lights. Mr. Bitondo related how these improvements fostered more pedestrian traffic. He said that the grandfather clause has given him the opportunity to be in business. Mr. Bitondo expressed his believe that Kent is experiencing change with the inclusion of the Regional Justice Center and the rail station implementation. He stated that the property values of Kent are experiencing an upswing. Mr. Bitondo stated that part of the nature of Kent centers around a downtown that has remained unmarred by high-rises. Mr. Bitondo voiced his opinion that future development in Kent will occur in the form of renovation of existing buildings to create more revenue and not in the construction of new buildings. Mr. Bitondo said that he supports the implementation of the proposal to extend the pedestrian overlay. Morgan Llewellyn, Post Office Box 902, Kent, WA stated that he has been a life long resident of Kent and has been employed in Kent for 18 years. He said that as a graduate of the University of Washington College of Architecture and Urban Planning he brings sensitivity to this issue. Mr. Llewellyn stated that he has been active in the sale, development, management, ownership and brokering of downtown Kent real estate markets since 1983. He stated that he has worked for property owners as well as businesses arriving in this market. Mr. Llewellyn expressed confidence in having a sense for where the market is and stated that he currently manages 160,000 square feet in the downtown core consisting of, offices,mixed use,retail, residential and retail space exclusively. Mr. Llewellyn stated that he is opposed to extending the pedestrian overlay into portions of the downtown area, as it would create a negative impact for the downtown area by restricting uses arriving in this market. He expressed concern that this proposal would not be good for the vitality of the community nor for people working downtown. Mr. Llewellyn stated that restricting use restricts revenue. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Llewellyn said that an office could be determined to be a pedestrian oriented use. People come into town for the purpose of using those businesses. He stated that he has leased 22,000 square feet in the past 90 days of which 16,000 square feet has been for office use. Mr. Llewellyn explained that more revenue is generated from leasing space for offices enabling property owners to maintain upkeep on their buildings as well as receive a fair return on their investments. Mr. Llewellyn reminded the Board and staff that recently constructed buildings in Kent have included the Centennial Center, the Meeker Law Building and the Phoenix Plaza which have been built for office use. He urged the Board to vote against extending the pedestrian overlay areas. Sharon Senn, 402 West Meeker Street, Kent, WA stated that she resides on East Hill and runs a business at 402 West Meeker Street. She explained that she moved her business from East Hill to downtown Kent four and one-half years ago. Ms. Senn said that she has noticed a tremendous improvement in the appearance of downtown over the last few years. She stated that the volume of people shopping in Kent has increased due to its small town feeling and variety of unique shops. Ms. Senn stated that it is necessary to retain retail space in the downtown core to attract a repetitive customer base. Ms. Senn said that the more retail businesses that are generated, the more synergism is created. Ms. Senn stated that she supports extending the pedestrian overlay into portions of the downtown area. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Mr. Dowell questioned why offices would want to locate in the downtown core area rather then in an established office zone with other offices. Mr. Harris deferred to Bruce Anderson stating he was not an authority in this area. Mr. Satterstrom responded to Mr. Dowell's question by describing the zones throughout the city that allow for office usage. Mr. Satterstrom stated that much of this proposal clarifies a policy already in place and said that existing policy state that retail and pedestrian service uses must be located on the first floor. Mr. Satterstrom said that in enumerating the kind of uses that are pedestrian oriented and those that are not, the KDP recommends in their proposal that the first floor retail extend into other areas of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise district. Mr. Satterstrom stated that in reference to the extension along new street frontages, this is a new policy proposal. Terry Zimmerman asked planning staff to provide her with a list of the business names, locations and professions that exist along the proposed overlay area along Railroad Avenue for her to make an adequate decision. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she did not see the significance of including Fourth Avenue north of Harrison and Smith Street up to Railroad Avenue as part of the downtown commercial zone. She voiced her concern over the certified public accountant located on Railroad Avenue who could be in danger of losing his business by converting the downtown zoning to retail use. Linda Phillips stated that the accountant located on Railroad Avenue could sell or transfer his business to another accountant as long as that business is not abandoned for longer then six months. Business operations can continue as a nonconforming use. Linda Phillips stated that she would provide a list of nonconforming businesses within the proposed overlay area at a later date. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 26, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Harmon requested that this item be continued to the next workshop meeting of November 9. Mr. Satterstrom asked the Board what additional information staff could provide in addition to the requested information on the kinds of uses allowed in the areas where the policy is being extended. Mr. Dowell asked Mr. Satterstrom about the feasibility of scheduling a tour of the areas in question. Mr. Satterstrom encouraged the Board to tour the area during the workshop with Planning staff providing photographs of the area. Ms. Evezich stated that she needed to clarify procedural issues. She stated that when an issue is under discussion during a public hearing, it is not permissible to continue discussion or deliberation of this issue outside the public forum at a workshop. Ms. Evezich reiterated that this item needs to be continued at a public hearing. Ms. Evezich further stated that the Board has the right to; • request clarification of the information they are seeking on the issue of nonconforming uses , and whether or not a sale can be executed within a six months limitation period , and • request the number and identity of businesses along Fourth Avenue and Harrison. Terry Zimmerman asked Planning staff to explain why it would be advantageous to include Harrison Street as part of the DC zone when the recommendation excludes Fourth Avenue and Smith Street. Mr. Hams stated that a motion has been made to continue discussion of this issue to a workshop. He questioned Ms. Evezich as to why she stated it is not permissible to continue the discussion to a workshop. Mr. Harris stated that the Council sends items of discussion back to committees to be discussed outside of public hearings and that the Board has the right to determine where this issue will be heard. Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to continue the hearing of #ZCA-98-4 Retail Use in (DCE) District to the next regularly scheduled meeting of November 23. Motion carried. Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, J es P. Harris ecretary Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: KETOLA REGULATORY REVIEW ZCA-98-6 - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on November 23, 1998 , and recommended that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow dart playing facilities as principally permitted uses . 3 . EXHIBITS : Staff memo, memo from Fred Satterstrom to the Land use and Planning Board dated 11/23/98 and minutes from the 11/23/98 Land Use and Planning Board public hearing 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (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 Zt t-td seconds to approve the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation of approval that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow dart playing as a principally permitted use and direct the Attorney' s Office to prepare an ordinance DISCUSSION : ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7G CITY or 1pb J7474 J T Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director December 2, 1998 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD TO PERMIT A DART PLAYING FACILITY IN THE M-2 ZONING DISTRICT (KETOLA AMENDMENT #ZCA-98-6) On November 1, 1998, Mr. John M. Ketola submitted a request for zoning code amendment to permit dart playing facilities in the M-2 (Limited Industrial) zoning district. A copy of his regulatory request is attached. The Land Use & Planning Board reviewed the matter at their November 9, 1998, workshop where it was decided to proceed to public hearing on the matter. Following a public hearing on November 23, 1998, the Land Use & Planning Board voted to endorse the proposed zoning code amendment and recommended to the City Council that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow dart playing facilities as principally permitted uses (minutes attached). P:\ADMIN�KETOLA2.DOC cc: James P. Hams, Planning Director : 0 hh AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 980_2-5895;TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 CITY or JE70 JS Jim White, NIa• Ranning ment (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544 James P. Harris,Planning Director MEMORANDUM November 23, 1998 TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST TO PERMIT DART PLAYING FACILITY(#ZCA-98-6) BACKGROUND: On November 1, 1998, Mr. John M. Ketola submitted a request for code amendment. His proposed change would permit dart playing facilities in the M-2 (Limited Industrial) zoning district. The request was reviewed by the Land Use & Planning Board at its November 9, 1998 workshop where it was decided to proceed to public hearing on the matter. See, attached regulatory review request from Mr. John M. Ketola, dated November 1, 1998. Prior to Mr. Ketola's filing of the regulatory request, he had submitted a letter for zoning interpretation to the Planning Department on September 3, 1998 wherein he described the proposed dart playing facility. This letter is attached to the staff report and helps to define the type of facility proposed. The Planning Department responded to his letter on September 9, 1998 and determined that this type of use was not permitted in the M-2 zone. Subsequently, Mr. Ketola appealed this determination on September 21, 1998. However, following discussions with planning staff, Mr. Ketola withdrew his appeal and filed the request for regulatory review. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the M-2 zoning district, as described in the Kent Zoning Code, is to provide a suitable area for a broad range of industrial and warehouseldistnbution activities with restrictions on the types of non-industrial uses, particularly office and retail uses. Offices are limited to 25% of the total floor area of a development; anything over 25% requires a conditional use permit. Retail uses are very limited and include only merchandise vending machine operators, tire and battery stores, and restaurants (without drive-up facilities). However, three types of recreational type uses are allowed in the M-2 zone, all of which have been authorized in the past by individual code amendments. These uses are gymnastic schools, health and fitness clubs, and indoor paintball. While all of these uses have been decided on their individual merits, two of the three (gymnastic schools and indoor paintball) have been argued on the basis of a need for large open floor spaces with high ceilings, characteristics common in industrial buildings. The proposed dart playing facility also requires high ceilings, based on a letter submitted by the applicant. See, attached letter from Samuel N. Zammuto to Mr. John M. Ketola, dated November 3, 1998. The proposed use would be located in an industrial building presently under construction at 252xx 74`h Avenue South in the Foster Industrial Park. The dart playing facility would comprise approximately half of the 10,000 sq. ft. structure. The site has adequate parking for the planned industnal use as well as for the prospective dart facility. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of permitting this use at the subject site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board endorse the proposed regulatory review request and recommend to the City Council that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow dart playing facilities as principally permitted uses. FS: pm P: admin\ketola.doc cc: James P. Harris Plannine Director 2]04th \VENUE SOUTH / KENT.%.ASHINGTON v803>5S,)5!TELEPHONE 17531 550-33W DECEIVED CITY OF KENT NOV 0 1 1998 REGULATORY REVIEW (]Q In CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Kant City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory process 1s In the public's best Interest, The Council wants the public to be able to participate In this review. The outline on this page Is Intended to give the public on opportunity to write down that, things that they do not like about an ordinance or regulation, The Council rfit then review the public's comments and, when appropriate, wake changes to ordinances and regulations. 0 What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review? 7a GA�e...(a Iry ilCla '-��r .�/ dr .E�C� iS, a�• i6o 0 What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation? 0 What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation? fS'.LrN.;Ps .t:- v9e^S i... 7Jy�/ Ze cr— —,w •�d �iG/�or� 0 What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change? �-N �,Qo,�,D.v..li pti� /moo c.,G vd7vdcf , e�i2 do ?4Zd3-c url .a /r+�r,c.J 6� /� ��a..e�eLo 8/i9C�u.�rrce—�6+--:s N�t�D ✓' i �vO . ./fX/ rF��.�•�llfiv6iryl.(�y..�� ssF%PYs S.*+A6ir 0 What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,.f--�p regulations, plans and policies? 0 Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member? ��$ 0 Do you have any general comments you wish to make (can be about the or- dinance/regulation you want changed or about anything else to do.with ordinances/regulations or the permit process)? Sera ASTi4c AZ NAME 1laZ ,0 ADDRESS /Ls PHONE NO/ `=S-3 /BS2- FCC�o 10/85 Araclinial, Jnc- November 3, 1998 Mr.John Ketola Darts Unlimited 1404 S. Central-Avenue Kent, WA 98032. Dear John, Pertaining to Arachnid's "Touchdown Dart Crame", the game consists of the following: • Two 3" diam. poles 14'high, made of plastic material with an 8' across section that attaches to the 14'poles at approximately 10' from the bottom Iwo base supporting the goal post. The goal post and crow bar are striped in color similar to zebra stripes,black and white. The two bases are made of wood for stabilizatioo of approximately 50 lbs. each. • The last item is a special 5'diameter roand 2"thick wooden dart head with all the numbers, singles- doubles &triples. The dart head weighs approximately 200 lbs and lays flat on the floor! All plastic tip darts stick into this special treated wood. It is recommended NO'Y to step or walls on the wooden daft head_ Touchdown Darts, promoted at our large tournament is the 41 draw among all dart players of men & women. Arachnid's distributor price is $1,995.00, F.O.13_ Rockford, TL, freight collect! Best regards, amuel N.Zammuto Vice President ofNiarketinb RECEIVED SNZ:LLD NOV 0 3 10 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5421 Material Avenue • P.0_ Box 2901 • Rockford, Illinois 61132-2901 / 8151654-0212 . 000/435.6319 •TLX 270576 FAX# 815-6.54-0447 NORTHWEST AUTOMATICS, INC. 25219 74th Ave. S., Kent, WA 98032 RECEIVE E Nj Tel: (253) 852-9006•Fax: (253) 852-0054 V E-Mail: nwainc®att.net CITY OF KEN) � AT1CS` PLANNING OEPARIMEN- September 2, 1993 city of Keaot Planning DicImuncat 220 46 Ave,South Kent,WA. 99032-5895 Arm.Janus F.Harris Dear W.Harris: This Icuer is in reference to Northwest Building 92, under construction at 25xxx 74" Avenue South, K=v,WA. 98032. The building is to be approximately 10,000 sq. feet, 5,000 sq. is allocated for warehouse space to supDurt Northwest Automatics located net 6or at 25219 746 Avenue South. The remaining 5,000-sq. fL is potentially earmarked for reail space for dart supplies and a family dart playing facility. ✓the location is currently approved for 1,000 sq. fL of retail space: however, in order to include the dart playing feature I am requesting approval for an additional 4,000 sq. & It is my intention to offer an alcohol &smoke Gee environment for fimily dart&billiard playing. I am aware that the currtnt zoning allows for paint ball ficilines. I was advised by a staff member of the Kent Planning Dept that my concept did not pose a problem, but that I should correspond with you rmpirdiag this matter. Northwest Automatics is a machine shop which maau£umrrrs components for the dart playing industry and I view the nmail enterprise as a natural e+m=1oa of the business which I have developed In providing, one local venue for wholesome firmly recstation Northwest Automatics is not only adding a desirable space where pam= and youngsters can play together, but also, an caharsce neat of the image and nevenue of the City of Kest I wi11 be coamcting you in the near future so that we may discu the viability of my plans and request Sincerely, John M.Katola Presidrat ""CNN d� �n Ei Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 2 September 4, 1998 pertaining to Ordinance 1504; 110, Subsection A with an additional request to resubmit this proposal at a future date. #ZCA-98-6 DART SUPPLY AND RECREATION CENTER IN M-2 ZONING DISTRICT Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that Mike Ketola, an owner of a proposed dart supply and recreation center, filed this code amendment request on November 1. This request stemmed from an appeal filed in September 1998 by Mr. Ketola. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the appeal pertained to a zoning interpretation in the M-2 zoning district regarding a proposed dart throwing facility. Mr. Satterstrom said that the Planning Department provided a zoning interpretation explaining that this type of facility was not a permitted use in the M-2 zone. Mr. Ketola appealed the zoning determination. Mr. Satterstrom said that staff stated that although this use is not permitted at present in the M-2 zoning district characteristics of the proposed use could justify a code amendment. Mr. Satterstrom stated that after staffs discussion with Mr. Ketola the appeal was dropped. Mr. Ketola then filed an application for a code amendment. Mr. Satterstrom explained the purpose of the M-2 zoning district is to provide a suitable area for a broad range of industrial and warehouse type uses. These uses are governed through a controlled environment in terms of retail and other service uses. Three recreational uses are enumerated in this type of zoning district as acceptable; gymnastic schools, health and fitness clubs, and indoor paintball. Mr. Satterstrom stated that these uses require high ceilings, which are common in industrial buildings. Mr. Satterstrom said that the proposed dart supply center abuts a commercial area although the proposed amendment would affect all M-2 zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that parking requirements are higher for recreational uses than those for typical warehouse and industrial uses. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the proposed site for this facility has adequate parking. Staff recommends approval of the code amendment to allow dart-playing facilities as a principally permitted use in the M-2 zoning district. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Board member Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion carved. Mr. John Ketola, 25219 74' Avenue South, Kent, WA stated that as the applicant for this proposal, his intent is to provide a safe dart playing facility for youth and families. He stated that he owns a manufacturing plant next door with a warehouse and retail outlet for their manufactured darts. Mr. Ketola explained that he was unaware that a dart playing facility would not be allowed in the M-2 zoning district. Mr. Ketola responded to Mr. Harmon's question on hours of operation by saying that he would close his facility at 9:00 p.m. on weekdays if curfew is set for 10:00 p.m. and if the weekend curfew is set at 12:00 a.m., he would close his facility at 11:00 p.m. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 3 Sharon Woodford questioned what type of darts was used with the dartboards. Mr. Ketola stated that the dartboards were the upright electronic soft tip dartboards. Tent'Zimmerman MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to endorse the proposed regulatory review request and recommend to the City Council that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow dart playing as a principally permitted use. Motion carried. 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Planner Matthews Jackson explained the process used in the evaluation and recommendation of comprehensive plan amendments. He outlined the specific criteria staff is required to follow in reviewing and analyzing each proposed amendment. Two of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments are proposed text changes only to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jackson explained that amendments are not allowed to result in development that would adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare. The amendments are considered based on consistency with goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and concurrency between the land use, transportation and capital facilities elements. CPA-98-2(C)/CPZ-98-3 BURRIDGE AMENDMENT Mr. Jackson said this is a proposal submitted by Mr. Charles Burridge. The site is approximately 11.21 acres and is located in the southeast corner of the city at 13602 Southeast 282nd Street. The applicant is requesting a change in the land use designation from SF-3 Single Family /3 units per acre to SF-6 Single Family/6 units per acre and an amendment to the zoning from SR-3/3.71 units per acre to SR-6/6.05 units per acre single family residential. Mr. Jackson said this site is located adjacent to last years Clasen/Dinsdale amendment site proposal which included the same change requests as is being requested on the Burridge amendment. Mr. Jackson stated that the Board and Council approved the Clasen/Dinsdale amendment, allowing for a precedence of this request. Mr. Jackson said the property is encumbered slightly by wetlands which will limit development through the central portion of the site. He indicated that a 50 foot buffer is typcially required surrounding wetlands as a protection from development. Mr. Jackson explained that staff has considered that the City of Kent is within the urban growth area in considering this recommendation. He stated that City Council supports single family development and that development is executed with cost effectiveness in providing urban services. Staff feels this recommendation is consistent with action taken last year and that that this amendment would provide for more single family ownership opportunities. Staff recommends approval of this application. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: TM INVESTMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS (CPA-97-3 AND CPZ-97-5) - EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board approved a comprehensive plan and zoning amendment for TM Investment during its 1997 annual comprehensive plan and zone amendment process . The approval was granted on the condition that the owner deed a portion of the property as a public right-of-way for the widening and improvement of 116th Avenue SE and Kent- Kangley Road. On January 20, 1998, the City Council approved the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation subject to adoption of the necessary ordinances; however, on February 3, 1998, at the request of the applicant, this matter was pulled from the ordinances with the understanding that it would be submitted to the Council at a later date following fulfillment of the condition to approval . As of this date, the condition has not been fulfilled. Staff is asking that the City Council consider and deem the application expired for failure to fulfill the condition of approval . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the approval of TM Investments ' comprehensive plan and zoning amendments CPA-97-3 and 11-PZ-97-5 be deemed expired for failure to fulfill the condition of approval . DISCUSSION : ACTION : Council Agenda Item No. 7H CITY OF Jim White, Mayor November 30, 1998 VIA FACSR YnE John Titus TM Investment Company c/o Martin Durkan Company 330 SW 43nd St Plaza,Suite 357 Renton WA 98055 RE: TM Investments/CPA-97-3 and CPZ-97-5 Dear Mr.Durkan: This letter will confirm our telephone conversations of November 12, 1998 and November 30, 1998, regarding the above referenced matter. During these conversations we discussed the status of the application you filed on behalf of TM Investment Company. As you recall,the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone application with the condition"that ...the owner shall deed that portion of the property necessary as public right-of-way for the widening and improvement of 116i'Avenue S.E.and Kent-Kangley Road,as planned by the City of Kent in conjunction with the 277m Street Corridor project" On January 20, 1998 the City Council approved the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation subject to adoption of the necessary ordinances. However,on February 3, 1998,at the request of TM Investment,this matter was pulled from the ordinances adopting the 1997 annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Map changes with the understanding that it would be submitted to the Council at a later date following fulfillment of the condition to rezone. With regard to the condition,it is my understanding that the City reduced the amount of land to the satisfaction of TM Investment,however,as of this date,this condition has not been fulfilled and your client continues to negotiate other aspects unrelated to the condition required for the rezone. This matter has been unresolved for nearly a year and the City is currently in the middle of its 1998 annual Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change amendment process. The outcome of TM Investment rezone may have an impact on surrounding rezones. As a consequence, it is imperative that this matter be resolved promptly. As we discussed,TM Investments has until 5:00 p.m.,December 8d'to fulfill the condition of rezone by deeding the appropriate right-of-way. If this does not occur,this office will present the matter to the City Council at its meeting on December 8t'and ask that the Council consider the application expired for lack of action. Hopefully,this will not be necessary. You indicated to me that you would forward this letter to your client. I will assume such is the case unless you advise me otherwise. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, y� r S4ogi Lubovich City Attorney cc: Jim White,Mayor Don Wickstrorn Leona Orr ,fin a,r >Vc qO KFNT WASHINGTONORM7-5395;'ELEPHONE 2061359-i300i FAXd359-333a i. { Jim White, Mayor epartment (253)859-3390/FAr(153) 850-1544 Aarris,Punning Director } PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM January 20, 1998 4:. >r TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR SUBJECT: #CPA-97-3 (A-H)/#CPZ-97-(1-7) - 1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS Attached is the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation relating to the proposed 1997 �nendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (#CPA-97-3 (A-H) and concomitant zoning recommendations/#CPZ-97-(1-7). The Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on this item on November 24, 1997 (see attached minutes). As outlined in the attached staff report, the City received a total of eight proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Seven of these requests involve changes to the Land Use Plan Map. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments have been reviewed concurrently with corresponding changes to the Kent zoning map. The Land Use and Planning Board considered the following applications at their November 24th public hearing. A summary of each application is provided below, followed by the Planning Board's recommended action on amending the Land Use Plan Map and zoning map (see attachments A and B). Proposal A - ..Change to the Land Use Plan Map from Mixed Use to Industrial for property located at 828 West Valley Highway (Anderson #CPA-97-3(A) and change in zoning from GWC to MU#CPZ-97-1) The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's property be redesignated as Industrial in the comprehensive plan and MI on the zoning map. The recommended changes are as shown on the attached maps in attachments A and B. r `�Qtr r 1997 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments January 20, 1998 Page 2 Proposal B - Change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multifamily to Mixed Use for property located at 104th Avenue SE and SE 262nd Street (Sanders #CPA-97-3(B) and change in zoning from MRG and O to CC/#CPZ-97-2) i The Planning Board is recommending that a portion of the applicant's property be redesignated as Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan, and the entire properry rezoned to Community Commercial (CC) on the zoning map. Proposal C - The applicant, Polygon Northwest, has withdrawn this application. Proposal D - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to Medium Density Multifamily for the properties located west of Pacific Highway South, south of Kent-Des Moines Road (Shulman #CPA-97-3(D) and change in zoning from GC to MRM/#CPZ-974) The Planning Board was unable to make a recommendation on this application. However, a motion to deny this request failed to get enough votes. Staff recommended a modified approval of this application to the Planning Board, as detailed in the staff report to the Land Use & Planning Board dated November.24. 1997 and attached herewith.. Proposal E - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential (SF-6) to Commercial for the property located at 11605 Kent-Kangley Road (T.M. Investment #CPA-97-3(E) and change in zoning from SR-6 to NCC/#CPZ-97-5) The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's property be redesignated as Commercial in the comprehensive plan with the following condition: "that as a condition of rezoning the subject property commercial; the owner shall deed that portion of the property necessary as public right-of-way for the widening and improvement of 116th Avenue Southeast and Kent-Kangley Road as planned by the City of Kent in conjunction with the South 277th Street Corridor Project." This property would be rezoned to Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC)on the zoning map. Proposal F - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential (SF-3) to Single Family Residential (SF-6) for the property located east of 132nd Avenue Southeast between SE 276th Street and SE 282nd Street (Clasen/Dinsdale #CPA-97-3(F) and change in zoning from SR-3 to SR-6/#CPZ-97-6) 4 4 ,g� January 20, 1998 �t City Council Minutes `y REHENSIVE Proposal H - is from the City of Rent Finance )se Department which is an update to the Capital Facilities Element due to the annexation of the Del Mar and Meridian Valley neighborhoods, and --ea ' that it includes the updating of the facilities. the Jackson clarified for Clark that staff and the Planning Board both recommend denial of the application for Proposal G. Upon Orr' s question, City Attorney Lubovich noted th-., that she could make a separate motion for the one on item that was not resolved by the Planning Board. •es ORR MOVED to adopt the Land Use and Planning rehensive Boar an amendme Items A B Qp G & H and zoning 'r map c anges as approved by a City Council, and it s . to direct the City Attorney to prepare the neces- :d x sary ordinance(s) . Epperly seconded. Orr s clarified for Clark that both the staff and the Planning Board' s recommendation for Proposal G is t denial and that her motion is to accept their str recommendation. She noted for Lubovich that Item 4u D is not being included in her motion because it e `~ �, came without a recommendation from the Planning re, = Board, and that Item C was not included because .ange- it was withdrawn. The motion then carried the.- unanimously. t. iat ORR MOVED that Item D' s request be denied until Id an such time as the City is able to look at its own {i condominium ordinance. Clark seconded and the motion carried. Orr explained that the City of Ls Des Moines is proposing a similar type zoning 3t with townhouses, and she expressed that it is arts important to have some further safeguards in a ' place before changing any sort of multi-family C1 designation. sou { G (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Department of EcoloaY Coordinated Preventi= to Grant. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the A Department of Ecology Grant Agreement and direct .e staff to accept the grant of $83 ,305 and esta- blish a budget for same, as recommended by the 1 Public Works Committee. S _on The Coordination Prevention Agreement specifies ,;.. _ the responsibility of ;the City in working towards its the expansion of existing programs as well as the 15 Kent City Council Minutes February 3 , 1998 ,Ken* PLATS finished by tonight and that perhaps two weeks COX would not be enough time so he is asking for a AXE month. CLARK MOVED to continue the Benson Highlands Final Plat for 30 days, until March 3 , 1998. Woods seconded and the motion carried. PUB COMPREHENSIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) PLAN 1997 Comtirebensive Plan Amendments i Zonina MAR AMENDMENTS Changes. Adoption of an ordinance relating to 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-97-3 (A) , CPA-97-3 (B) , CPA-97-3 (F) , CPA-97-3 (H) , and adoption of an ordinance relating to Zoning Map Changes CPZ-97-1, CPZ-97-21 and CPZ-97-6. These ordinances would amend the comprehensive p;an' s A land use map designations and the zoning map designations of parcels of property more speci- TRF fically identified in the ordinances, asw 11 as COP amend the Capital Facilities Element of tht Comprehensive Plan. ' At the request of the applicant, items CPA-97-3 (E) and CPZ-97-5 relating to property located at 11605 Kent-Kangley Road, have been removed from these ordinances and will be submitted to the Council at a later date following fulfillment of a condition to rezone set forth in the Land Use and Planning Board recommendations approved by the Council on January 20, 1998. City Attorney Lubovich noted that there are changes to both of the ordinances regarding the effective dates. He noted that one of the applicants had requested that the effective date be changed to earlier than 30 days. He noted that under the law zoning changes are not subject to referendum so instead of the 30 day effective period, the city can and typically would have drafted the ordinances for a five day effective period after publication. He suggested that Section 4 of the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance nd be Section 5 of the Zoning Amendment Ordinance than � changed to a five-day effective date rather t a 30-day effective date. CLARK MOVED for adoption of ordinance No. relating to 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendmu CPA-97-3 (A) , CPA-97-3 (B) , CPA-97-3 (F) , y.. 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS - ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is a recommendation by the Operations Committee to approve an updated fee schedule for land use permits and other planning reviews and approvals . This matter was reviewed by the Operations Committee during their November 17, 1998 and December 1, 1998 meetings . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, ordinance and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Con (Committee, Staff, Examiner, r 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL It 1 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED : $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CouncilmemberA _moves, Councilmember w �� seconds to adopt Ordinance No.3,t_;�)q, repealing and revising Section 11 . 03 . 730 of the Kent City code and repealing Ordinances 2171, 2178 , 2249, 2403, 2667 and 3098 relating to land use applica- tion fees and adopting Resolution No. establishing a new fee schedule for planning and land use applications filed with the City of Kent . DISCUSSION : ACTION: r ► ►` �`�Wr�w UU U Council Agenda Item No. 7I CITY OF JE]�� Jim White, Mayor PlangDartMent (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 8, 1998 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: DIANA C. NELSON, PLANNER SUBJECT: PROPOSED LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS Background: The Kent Planning Department charges fees for land use and zoning permits issued by the department and this revenue is then placed in the City's General Fund. Kent first established land use fees for development activities in July 1979 under Ordinance 2171 and subsequently amended the short plat in August of the same year, under Ordinance 2178. In October 1986, the land use fee schedule was significantly revised. The zoning permit fee was increased from $25 to $32 in March 1993. There have been no changes made to the land use fee schedule in the last 5 years and no significant revisions have been made in 12 years; in fact, the 2-4-lot short plat fee and the subdivision final plat fee date back to 1979. Over the last twelve years, the cost of a single family dwelling in south King County has doubled while the City's land use and zoning permit fees have remained nearly static. The fees, which were intended to defray permit processing costs to the city, do not cover the administrative portion of the cost of processing an application and for certain types of permits, the fee doesn't even cover the city's cash expenditures for such items as advertising, mailing and Hearing Examiner fees. The Cost To The City For Permit Reviews: The General Fund supports the Planning Department with land use fee revenue off-setting some of the overall costs. The overall cost of development permit issuance and land use review activity is borne both by developers through the fees charged by the city and by the local taxpayers through property and sales taxes collected. If permit applicants do not pay fees equal to the total cost of processing their permits, the remainder must be paid by local taxpayers. Historically, the City has encouraged development activity in the City and subsidized the cost to developers by setting relatively low land use fees and by keeping those fees steady for many years between fee revisions. Currently, a permit for a residential deck, a $3 million office building or the S90 million Regional Justice Center complex has the same $32 zoning permit fee. However, the actual time and cost involved in reviewing and processing each of these types of permits is radically different. In addition, the City does not currently charge for a number of different types of land use reviews, for which most other jurisdictions collect fees. '20 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.�9ASHINGTON 00 z'sx9<i TELEPHONE I�53t S59-330o Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members Subject: Proposed Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions Date: December 8, 1998 Page 2 Comparison Of Kent's Fees To Other Cities: The Planning Department reviewed the fee schedules of numerous cities in King County and north Pierce County and chose several cities of comparable size, development activity and/or location, including Federal Way, Auburn, Renton and Bellevue, as "market cities" to compare selected fees. These specific fees were selected as representative samples of a variety of land use application permits processed by most jurisdictions. The fee comparison clearly showed that the City of Kent had the lowest land use permit fees of all of the "market cities (see Table 1). All of the market cities had revised their fee schedules more recently than had Kent. Proposed Fees: Based on the review of the fee schedules of the comparable market cities and the estimate of costs and staff time associated with the different types of permit approval processes, the Planning Department developed a proposed fee schedule based on the following premises: 1. The permit-related expenditures by the city (advertising, Hearing Examiner, mailing, etc.) should be recovered by the fees collected for the application. 2. The fee collected for the application should recover a portion of the administrative and staff time associated with the permit. 3. Builders and developers should pay a more equitable portion of the land use permit fees. 4. The amount of the permit fee should directly relate to the amount of review time and administrative costs associated with the application. 5. Permits for modifications to existing single-family dwellings should increase only minimally. 6. Land use approvals associated with small-scale single family development (i.e. lot line adjustment, single family variance, 2-4 lot short plat) should have reduced fee levels to give single family homeowners and taxpayers a price break over large scale and commercial/industrial development. 7. Appeals should remain affordable for citizens of all economic levels. S. A fee reduction should be granted for multiple permit applications for a single development, which could be processed in the same hearing. 9. City of Kent fees should be comparable to other market cities of similar size and development activity. Committee Review: The fee schedule proposal went to Operations Committee for review at the November 17, 1998 meeting. The committee continued the fee proposal item until the December 1, 1998 meeting to allow committee members sufficient time to meet with planning staff and address certain issues of concern. At the December 1, 1998 Operations Committee meeting, Councilperson Tim Clark proposed an amendment to the fee schedule proposal, which addressed the issues of affordable housing and mixed-use buildings. The amendment reduced the proposed permit fees for Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members Subject: Proposed Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions Date: December 8, 1998 Page 3 accessory dwelling units in single family zones, new single family dwellings with a construction value of less than $125,000 and for major construction on an existing single family dwelling. In addition, the amendment reduced the current fee for minor construction on an existing single family dwelling (ie. deck, minor additions and smaller accessory buildings) and gave a considerable fee waiver for mixed use development which combine both commercial and residential uses in one building. The Planning Department supported these revisions. The Operations Committee voted 2 to 1 to recommend approval of the proposed fee schedule as amended by the Clark revisions. DN\ch\p:feestaf3.doc Enclosures cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner || 2■■2m§K§|kmm2 ' ■ ' ■§§■ � �| ------ ' --- ■ NMI■■# | 2s§§ -`--- . ■--- . §4/ $- - �; ; �| vaM I I I I � ■z .,l,; . . . . ; !|\,WW \[[[ k# k § $ ■ |B~` 2 w -§B- LLUJ -- --.�--I \ f - o ■- � § ------ E; ;©5, � \ 0 E !; - E |! ) ° � ƒ ) § °,_ a q ■ ,`! � LLU U _2 2 \ _ ! _ CL .2} ! � , k,� § � � �}J» ; � .. ,!70> , ■,0 LU k | ■e!! �a!}} | ! | « vMM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington repealing Ordinances 2171, 2178, 2249, 2403, 2667 and 3098 and amending Section 11.03.730 of the Kent City Code pertaining to the fee schedule for planning and land use applications filed with the City of Kent. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2171 established certain fees for planning and land use applications filed with the City of Kent; and WHEREAS,this fee schedule has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 2178, 2249, 2403, 2667, and 3098; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a review of the current fee schedule and has determined that the existing fees are no longer appropriate and that a new fee schedule should be established by city council resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Ordinance Nos. 2171, 2178, 2249, 2403, 2667, and 3098 are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION2. Section 11.03.730 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1 Planning Fee Schedule See. 11.03.730. Fees. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in accordance with the provisions of this chapter: 1. Threshold determination. For every environmental checklist the city will review when it is lead agency,the city shall collect a fee as established by the City Council fene , ....a_°a r:k, dollars (%159.99) from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination. The time periods provided by this chapter for making a threshold determination shall not begin to run until payment of the fee, and receipt of the checklist by the planning department. When the city completes the environmental checklist at the applicant's request, an additional fee shall be collected. This fee shall be based on the actual preparation time and rate of salary and benefits for staff time. 2. Environmental impact statement. a. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an environmental impact statement and the environmental impact statement is prepared by employees of the city,the city may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the city in preparing the environmental impact statement. Costs will be determined based upon the costs of staff assigned to the preparation of the environmental impact statement, including hourly salary and benefits. The responsible official shall advise the applicants of the projected costs for the environmental impact statement prior to actual preparation. The applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. b. The city reserves the right under WAC 197-11420 to contract directly with a consultant for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, or a portion of an environmental impact statement, at the determination of the city. Consultants shall be selected by the city after a call for proposals. Consultant actions in preparing an environmental impact statement or portions thereof shall be exclusively managed and administered by the city to assure that the environmental impact statement is prepared in a Planning Fee Schedule professional manner and with appropriate interdisciplinary methodology. The applicant shall post a minimum one- thousand-five-hundred-dollar deposit with the city to ensure payment of consultant costs and the preparation of an environmental impact statement. Further, the costs incurred in the preparation of an environmental impact statement shall be paid by the applicant to the city, who shall then make payment to the consultant. C. If a proposal is modified so that an environmental impact statement is no longer required, the responsible official shall refund any fees collected under subsection 2.a. or b. above which remain after incurred costs are paid. 3. State environmental policy act appeals. For every appeal filed under section 11.03.520, the city shall collect a fee as established by the City Council. 4. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. 5. The city may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by RIA1 sl} Ch. 42.17 RCW. SECTION 3. Severability. 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. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. 3 Planning Fee Schedule JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of ' 1998. APPROVED: day of , 1998. PUBLISHED: day of , 1998. 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 V.AWV 00ina uTft schcduleAm 4 Planning Fee Schedule RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a fee schedule for planning and land use applications filed with the City of Kent. WHEREAS, the City of Kent Planning and Land Use Fee Schedule was adopted in 1979 and since adoption a number amendments have been made to the fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the most recent amendment to the fee schedule in March 1993 only revised the zoning permit fee and therefore the last significant revision to the Planning and Land Use Fee Schedule was on October 1986; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a review of the current fee schedule and determined that the current fees for many applications do not cover expenditures incurred by the City to process these applications; and WHEREAS, during its meetings of November 17, 1998 and December 1, 1998, the Operations Committee recommended approval of proposed revisions to the fee schedule; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Planning Fee Schedule SECTION 1. That the schedule of fees set forth in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is hereby established as the fee schedule for all planning and land use applications filed with the City of Kent. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution and the fees established herein shall take effect and be in force on January 7, 1999, the effective date of the Ordinance adopted this same date which amends subsection 11.03.730 of the Kent City Code and repeals Ordinance Nos. 2171, 2178, 2249, 2403, 2667, and 3098 relating to fees for planning and land use applications. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this day of , 1998. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of 1998. JIM WHITE,MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Planning Fee Schedule APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1998. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\LAW\Rmiution\lend use fee schedule doc 3 Planning Fee Schedule EXHIBIT 1: CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE Permit Application Type Fee Notes Accessory Dwelling Unit $50 1 Administrative Decision WTF $300 Appeal of Administrative Interpretation/ Decision $200 Appeal of SEPA Determination $200 Binding Site Plan $500 Binding Site Plan Modification $300/$400 (2 Combining Districts $1,500 S12 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment $1,500 (12 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment $1,500 12 Conditional Use $1,200 15 Downtown Design Review $200/$500 3 (16 Lot Line Adjustment $300 4) Lot Line Elimination $100 (5 Mixed Use Design Review $500 16 Multi-Family Design Review $500 + $10/unit 16 Tentative Planned Unit Development Plan $250 Planned Unit Development Plan $2500 + $50/unit Planned Unit Development Plan Modification $250/$750 6 Pre-Application Conference $250 Public Notice Board $150 7 SEPA Checklist $250/$700 8 SEPA Modification $75/ $250 9 SEPA Exempt Determination $200 SEPA Environmental Impact Statement $2,000 + deposit 10 Shoreline Conditional Use $1,200 15 Shoreline Exempt Determination $200 Shoreline Substantial Development $1,000 Shoreline Variance $750 15 Short Plat 2-4 lots $500 Short Plat(5-9 lots)-Tentative Plat $250 Short Plat 5-9 lots - Preliminary Plat $1500 + $50/1ot Short Plat 5-9 lots - Final Plat $1000 + $20/lot Sign Permit $150 S ecial Home Occupation Permit $300 15 Subdivision -Tentative Plat $250 Subdivision - Preliminary Plat $2500 + $50/lot Subdivision - Final Plat $1500 + $20/lot Temporary Use $1001$250/$150 11 Temporary Sin $75 Variance-Administrative $300 Variance-Single Family Dwelling $300 15 Variance -Sign & Other than Single Family Dwelling $750 15 Zone Map Amendment Rezone $1,500 12 Zoning/Subdivision Code Text Amendment $500/ $1500 12) 13 ,Zoning Permit/Site Plan Review $25/$50/value 14a-14e 16 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 1: CITY OF KENT PLANNING AND LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE NOTES (1) $50 fee is applicable for an attached accessory dwelling unit, an interior accessory dwelling unit or for a detached accessory dwelling unit in a single-family residential zone. The fee includes the cost of the Planning Department recording of the accessory dwelling unit covenant documents with King County. An accessory living quarters in a commercial or industrial zone is subject to the applicable construction value-based fee. (2) Any changes to an approved,but unrecorded Binding Site Plan are subject to the $300 fee for a modification to a Binding Site Plan. Any changes to a recorded Binding Site Plan are subject to the $400 fee for a modification to a Binding Site Plan. (3) The $200 fee is applicable to minor alterations and improvements. The $500 fee is applicable to all new buildings, redevelopment, and major alterations and improvements. (4) Fee includes the cost of the Planning Department recording of the lot line revision documents with King County. (5) The $100 fee is applicable to the elimination of lot lines between two or more parcels in the same ownership. The fee includes the cost of the Planning Department recording of the lot line revision documents with King County. All other types of lot line adjustments, except for a lot line elimination, are subject to the lot line adjustment fee schedule. (6) Any minor change to an approved Planned Unit Development Plan is subject to the $250 fee for a modification. Any major change to an approved Planned Unit Development Plan is subject to the $750 fee for a modification. (7) $75 of the $150 public notice board fee is refundable if the notice board is returned to the Planning Department, in the same condition as when issued, within 20 calendar days of the final public hearing. (8) The $250 fee is applicable only to SEPA review of construction of one single family dwelling on an individual parcel. All other SEPA checklist applications are subject to the $700 fee. (9) The S75 fee is applicable only to modifications to a SEPA determination for one single family dwelling on an individual parcel. All other modifications to a SEPA determination are subject to the $250 fee. (10) $2000 fee plus a deposit, equal to the estimated cost of contract services necessary to complete the EIS process, must be submitted to the city. (11) Temporary Use Permits 0-30 days............. 5100 31-90 days............ $250 Extensions beyond 90 days...........$150 (12) Application requires public hearings. If multiple permit applications which require the same hearing procedure are submitted at the same time, the applicant will be charged the full fee for the permit application with the highest fee and 50% of the established fee for each of the other permits eligible for a consolidated review and hearing. (13) The $500 fee is applicable to amendments to Single Family Residential zones only. Amendments to all other zoning districts or sections of the zoning code are subject to the $1,500 fee. (14) a) The $25 fee is applicable for Minor Single Family Dwelling Construction on an existing dwelling such as a deck, minor addition of less than 25% of existing floor area, interior remodel or accessory building of 500 square feet or less on the same lot as the existing dwelling. b) The $50 fee is applicable for Major Single Family Dwelling Construction on an existing dwelling such as major addition of more than 25% of existing floor area or an accessory building of more than 500 square feet on the same lot as the existing dwelling. c) All new single family dwelling construction in a residential zone is subject to the following fee schedule: Development Services Construction Value: $0474,999.............$50 $75,000 - $124,999.........$100 $125,000 - $224,999........$200 Over $225,000..........$300 d) All new buildings, tenant improvements, an accessory living quarters in a commercial or industrial zone and other construction and development activity, other than single family dwelling construction, is subject to the following fee schedule: Development Services Construction Value: $0-$99,999..............$250 $100,000-$249,999.............$500 $2 5 0,000-$499,999 ............$7 5 0 $500,000-$999,999...........$1,000 $1,000,000-$4,999,999.......$1,500 $5,000,000-$10,000,000.....$2,000 Over $10,000,000.............$2,500 e) The zoning permit fee for those development projects for which no building permit is required but which requires site plan review and a zoning permit, shall be based on the value of the proposed development to be undertaken. The value of the proposed construction/ development shall be determined based on professional estimates by a licensed engineer, architect, landscape designer or contractor. These estimates may include, but are not limited to, grade and fill of the site, paving, placement of utilities, lighting, landscaping, and other site improvements. The combined total of the cost estimates for all development on the site shall be the established value basis for the zoning permit fee. (15) Application requires a public hearing before the Hearings Examiner. If multiple permit applications which require a HE decision are submitted at the same time, the applicant will be charged the full fee for the permit application with the highest fee and 50% of the established fee for each of the other permits eligible for a consolidated review and hearing. (16) Application fees may be reduced by 75% if the application is for a mixed-use building. Fee reduction applies to site plan review/zoning permit, mixed use design review, multi-family design review and downtown design review. Fee waivers do not apply to SEPA, short plat, subdivision or other permit requests associated with the development of a site, nor does fee reduction apply to mixed use development where the commercial and residential uses are not located within the same building. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 8, 1998 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: BUREAU OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION GRANT APPLICATION - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In order to receive approximately $250, 000 in grant application funds, the Kent City Council must first authorize the Police Department to apply for the grant . The deadline for the grant application is December 15, 1998 . 3 . EXHIBITS : 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT : NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember G L moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize the Police Department to apply for the Bureau of Justice Administration grant application. DISCUSSION: ACTION : Council Agenda Item No . 7J Rent City Council Meeting Date: December 8 , 1998 Other Business WALK ON 1 . SUBJECT: Carpet Purchase for Centennial Center - Authorize 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Through the State Bid Contract, Facilities staff secured pricing from three vendors to purchase replacement carpet for City space in the Centennial Center. Dupont Flooring Systems was the low bidder at $67, 945 . 59 for carpeting and $44, 393 . 99 for installation, (plus WSST) . Staff is requesting immediate action so that all necessary materials can be ordered for installation in February 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid Tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: YES NO X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: Centennial Center Improvement Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Move to authorize entering into agreement with DuPont Flooring Systems for the purchase and installation of carpet for the Centennial Center in the amount of $121, 914 . 45, plus Washington State Sales Tax. 8 . Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION — FACILITIES BID TAB PROJECT: Centennial Center Carpeting BID DATE: December 2, 1998 BIDDER AMOUNT, plus WSST 1. DuPont Flooring System $121,914.45 2. FORBAR $125,125.66 3. Pacific Modular $143,136.97 Bids include materials and labor 2 CITY OF KENT PARKS AND RECREATION — FACILITIES BID TAB PROJECT: Centennial Center Carpeting BID DATE: December 2, 1998 BIDDER AMOUNT, plus WSST 1. DuPont Flooring System $121,914.45 2. FORBAR $125,125.66 3. Pacific Modular $143,136.97 Bids include materials and labor 2 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PARKS COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES October 20, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Connie Epperly, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Evezich, Tom Brotherton, May Miller, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Rod Saalfeld, Shirley Stone, J.E. Stone, John Santana, George Billings The meeting was called to order by Chair, Judy Woods, at 4:38PM. Approval of Minutes of September 15, 1998 Committee member, Connie Epperly, made the motion to approve the minutes of September 15, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. _West Fenwick Park Handball Courts Update Lori Flemm, from the Parks Department, informed the Committee that a public meeting had been held to receive input on the proposal to relocate the three handball courts from Garrison Creek Park at West Fenwick Park. Four people attended the meeting and two phone calls were received prior to the meeting. All people were in support of the location and there was no opposition to the handball courts at West Fenwick Park. Several issues were discussed including safety fencing on top of the walls or railing so people wouldn't run or slide down the hill and fall over the walls. Drainage and ground water were the main topics of discussion. Ms. Flemm also mentioned that,in the Capital Facilities Plan,the funding for the handball courts is listed as Garrison Creek Park Renovation Phase II. She said that project had been in the CFP in prior years and the title of the project was not changed to reflect location at West Fenwick Park Next month the department would like to proceed with a topical survey and then with engineering at the park Committee member, Rico Yingling, asked about the concern for sliding down the hill. Ms. Flemm said the hill is used for sledding, so the courts have been located away from the sledding track However, there is the concern about kids running and jumping off the walls. Mr. Yingling asked if there were any neighborhood associations in the area and suggested a meeting with them to see if they had any concerns. Ms. Flemm said she would follow through with that. Approval for Temporary Easement to D.O.T. for Construction Access at Riverview Park Lori Flemm presented the request from the D.O.T. for an easement from the City of Kent across Riverwalk Park, which is located on the east bank of the Green River on the west side of SR167. The easement is on property that the City obtained in 1990 and is an undeveloped park at this time. The D.O.T. is requesting the easement so they can have access to construct a mining wall along the proposed HOV lanes on SR167. They need the access to get their personnel, machinery, and equipment in to form and pour the concrete retaining wall. Ms. Flemm said her department has met with them and discussed the wall. There are blackberries there now and the D.O.T. will cut them down and then re-seed the area once thev finish construction. They will also replace the stranded barbed wire fence that's currently there. Connie Epperly moved to approve a temporary easement to D.O.T. for construction access at Riverview Park and to authorize the Mayor to sign the temporary easement. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Accent & Amend Budget for Consolidated Food Management Contract Funds Parks Director, John Hodgson, told the Committee that late last year the department had entered into a contract with Consolidated Food Service Management to use the Senior Center kitchen to provide meals for some of their programs. Within that budget $40,000 is allocated back to the Senior Center. Mr. Hodgson said the money needs to be allocated annually. The money this year is going into transportation costs to help replace some of the vehicles at the Senior Center and next year it will go into program staffing. Rico Yingling moved to accept and amend the Senior Center budget for the annual contracted amount of$40,000 for each of the next three years from Consolidated Food Management, Inc. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Accent & Amend Budget for Miscellaneous Grants & Donations John Hodgson said that each year there are a number of grants and donations to the Parks Department. Accepting and amending the budget allows a year-end cleanup to accept and appropriate those monies. Approximately $10,500 money has come in for the Canterbury Faire, Meridian Glen Playground Park,the Resource Center for Tae Kwon Do, and Make a Difference Day, as well as some grants for special populations programs at the Resource Center, the Stewpot Theater, and other programs. Connie Epperly moved to accept and amend the series of budgets listed above for receipt for miscellaneous grants and donations. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Riverbend Golf Course Operation Update John Hodgson said the Golf Advisory Board had been asked to review the proposed fee increases presented at the last Parks Committee meeting. The Board did the review, and through motions, adopted the increases. Mr. Hodgson introduced George Billings, chair of the advisory board,and asked him to give an overview of the discussion from the board. Mr. Billings said he was pleased to see the improvements at the golf facility at Riverbend. He said Nevada Bob's Pro Shop has already shown success in increased sales of merchandise and a very good improvement in the selection of merchandise available. Sales are up approximately 150% over the same period last year, the driving range participation is steady, the mini-putt course activity is down slightly, and the par three participation is steady. The number of rounds played this year at the 18 hole course is approximately the same as in 1997. He said the two golf courses are in very good condition and the greens are better than at other public courses in the area. Mr. Billings said Pete Petersen, the course superintendent, had done an excellent job. Since revenue shortfalls for 1998 are projected in the amount of$200,000 to $250,000, Mr. Billings said the advisory Board would like to make the following three recommendations: I. Increase the regular rates by $2.00 for both weekday and weekend 18 hole rounds, effective April 1, 1999, and increase the winter rates at the 18 hole course by $2.00 effective November 1, 1999. The estimated annual increase would be approximately $128,000. 2. Increase the fee for range balls on small buckets from$2.25 to $3.00 and on large buckets from $4.50 to $6.00 and also increase the amount of balls in those buckets. This increase is recommended to take effect on November 1, 1998 or at the latest, January 1, 1999, and will increase the annual revenue approximately $95,000. 3. League fees are at a reduced rate at the par three golf course. The recommendation is for the league fees to be increased by $2.00 for 18 holes when the leagues resume in the spring of 1999. This would generate only a modest increase in total revenues at the par three, but would be the first increase in those league fees in many years. Rico Yingling asked why wait to increase the regular rates for the 18 hole course. George Billings said winter rates would take effect on November 1, 1998 and they have already been increased$2.00 over last year. If the increase was in stages, it wouldn't seem so large as if it was $4.00 all at once. Mr. Yingling asked if the league rates compared with other league rates in the area. George Billings said Riverbend's rates are actually very, very low. Mr. Yingling said it seemed too low and wanted to know if there could be a rate just for seniors. Mr. Yingling asked what kind of usage at the driving range the income increase was based on. John Hodgson said it was based on the same usage as this year which produced approximately the same amount of revenue as last year. He said participation is based on a fixed number of golf balls hit The number of dollars generated this year is up a small amount over last year so use of the driving range has increased. The increase is not as much as projected, and the participation level has been pretty much the same this year as last. Mr. Yingling said he was under the impression that there had been a reduction in driving range participation because of the netting and asked if that was incorrect. Mr. Hodgson said there had not been a decrease from the year before, but that the assumption, going into 1998, was that with Nevada Bob's, there would be more participation. He said the line had been held, but there had been no gain Jim Stone, Riverbend Golf Complex manager, stated an example from Northshore Golf Course in Federal Way who had applied the concept of golf club restrictions in certain areas of their driving range because golfers were playing onto the netting and balls were actually going over the nets. He thought restrictions within certain areas at Riverbend would be a good solution. Mr. Hodgson said restricting some of the nets might be an answer right now. If certain clubs were restricted in certain areas, some of the nets could be eliminated and still solve the problem. Mr. Hodgson thought that, with fee recommendations, the golf complex should be able to meet revenue expectations plus have money in the bank, assuming next year is another good year. The expected shortfall is approximately $240,000. On the driving range, the fees are going up a third, but golfers are getting a third more balls so they're not paying any more. Rico Yingling asked if there was concern about the elasticity effect of raised prices resulting in loss of business. George Billings said it was possible to lose some but the loss would be made up with the increase of revenue. Mr. Yingling questioned how the two proposals for revenue increases that amount to $223,000 would meet the $240,000 shortfall this year and still meet the cost of the program with a net amount to use for capital improvement and other things. Jim Stone recounted the recommendation of the interbond funding from the City with pay back in 1999 from the rate increases. The total amount from the range ball increase, the 18 hole fee increase and the deferred Capital Fund repayment would be $363,000. That, offset by $225-240,000, would give approximately a $120,000 remaining balance. Ivlr. Hodgson said the proposal is to transfer up to $140,000 from the CIP into the golf complex operating budget to cover the costs of the green space bond issue. Also proposed is a$250,000 loan to the golf course that will make up for the other shortfall in revenue and will provide the golf course with the working capital it needs for the first few months of winter when revenue is harder to make. That short-term loan should be made up by August of next year or sooner. Rico Yingling moved to increase the green fees at the 18 hole golf course by $2.00 per round beginning April 1, 1999 and to increase driving range fees to $6.00 for a large bucket of 100 balls and $3.00 for a small bucket of 50 balls beginning Dec. 1, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3- 0. Mr. Yingling moved to transfer $140,000 from the CIP to the golf operating budget to cover the green space bond issue for 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Mr. Yingling moved to provide a short-term line of credit of$250,000 to the golf operating budget to cover the year end deficit of approximately $100,000 and provide operating costs for January through May 1999. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. John Hodgson reminded the Committee that they technically had not raised league fees, but said the administration makes fee changes throughout the year based on the leagues and did not think it was an action the Committee had to take. Third Ouarter Division Reports - 1998 John Hodgson brought the Third Quarter Reports to the attention of the Committee. He encouraged the Committee to read them and give him a call if they had any questions. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18PM. Operations Committee Minutes November 17,. 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Jim Harris, John Hodgson, May Miller, Charles Lindsey, Don Wickstrom, Paul Scott, Dena Laurent, Tom Vetsch, Brent McFall, Fred Satterstrom, Diana Nelson, Lori Flemm, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair, Judy Woods, at 3:30PM. There were two additional items added to the agenda: TIB Grant for the 196t' St. Corridor, and Freight Mobility Systems Improvement Study. Approval of Minutes of November 3, 1998 Committee Member, Tim Clark, made the motion to approve the minutes from the November 3, 1998 Operations Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 11/15/98 Finance Director, May Miller, presented the vouchers dated November 15, 1998 and requested the Committee approve them. Tim Clark made the motion to approve the vouchers in the amount of$3,110,418.34. The motion was seconded and carved 3-0. Accounts Receivable Write-Off May Miller informed the Committee that the State Auditor recommends that once a year uncollectible accounts receivable over a year old should be reviewed and removed from the books. Even though the account is written off, it can still be collected if the opportunity arises to recover the money. Ms. Miller said most of the uncollectible accounts are from out-of-state accidents. Committee Member, Sandy Amodt, asked what the cost would be to continue mailing notices to the delinquent accounts. Tom Vetsch, Customer Services Manager, said that the City still continues to send notices to the last address and to check with the Department of Revenue and Licensing. Ms. Amodt asked what the rate of return was after a year's period. Mr. Vetsch said it was about 20%. Sandy Amodt made the motion that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the write-off for 1997 past due accounts receivables of$19,122.80. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Pettv Cash/Chance Fund Amendment May Miller said the total amount allocated for the Petty Cash Fund and the Change Fund is sufficient but the allocation between the funds needs to be changed to give greater flexibility. The funds must be kept separate and cannot be mixed. Every year an audit is done with the request to review each individual department to make sure the amount is adequate and the funds are being used for the proper reason. Sandy Amodt asked for a clarification of the differences between the two funds. Tom Vetsch said Petty Cash is for small, immediate purchases and needs to be flexible and kept to a minimum level. The Change Funds are the tax records for each location as well as tax records that can only have similar events. Ms. Miller said the Change Fund at the customer service counter has to remain intact and can't be used for other purposes. Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the transfer of$1,500 from the Change Fund to the Petty Cash Fund. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Proposed Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom, informed the Committee that the present fee system had not been adjusted for about 12 years except for some minor adjustments in 1986. Mr. Satterstrom said since the fee system had not been appropriately reviewed every year, it is so far out of date that a substantial step is needed. He gave an example of the zoning review on a new development such as the Regional Justice Center, which is a substantially large project at $90,000,000, and has a fee of$32 for the zoning permit. That is the same permit fee required for a single-family dwelling. There is no sliding scale or differentiation for site plan review between the values of the projects. The current fees do not take care of some of the basic costs such as staff costs of reviewing the permits, and the costs of the hearing examiner. Land Use Permits require substantial advertising and the fees collected do not cover the costs of advertising in the newspapers. The current system has quite a substantial public subsidy to it with the costs generally coming out of the city budget. Mr. Satterstrom introduced. Diana Nelson, Planner, and said that she had done substantial research on the issue. Ms. Nelson passed out and explained two graphs to the Committee Members as well as the tables included in the agenda packets. Table 1 showed original fees, current fees, and amended fees; Table 2, a comparison between local cities of selected land use fees; Table 3, an estimated revenue comparison between local cities of selected land use fees; Table 4, the 1998 Kent Planning proposed Land Use Fee Schedule; and Table 5, the revenue generated by Kent Land Use Fees. Figure 1 looked at the average cost of a single family dwelling from 1980-1998 and showed the cost had risen from approximately $80,000 in 1980 to approximately $230,000 in 1998. Figure 2 showed the cost of the City of Kent's Land Use Permits from 1979-1998. Ms. Nelson shared nine premises upon which the proposed fee schedule was based that covered the processes involved and the related costs in administration, including those of the Hearing Examiner's office, and the amount of staff time needed. Ms. Nelson stressed that the permit fee should relate directly to the amount of review time and administrative costs associated with the application. The new schedule provides for a sliding scale to differentiate between single family, multi family, commercial, and industrial development, and also provides reduced fee permits for additions and remodels for single family dwellings as well as variances, lot line eliminations,and 2-4 lot short plats. Tim Clark asked if the new fees reflected the actual cost of mailings as the larger style projects would require mass mailings. Mr. Satterstrom said that they did. A subdivision has posting, publishing, and hearing examiner costs, which is a more complex process and so the fees are generally higher. A short plat is a more straight administrative process and the fee is smaller. Mr. Clark asked about a third classification of housing which is the mixed-use development combination of 25% commercial and 75% residential. Mr. Satterstrom said a mixed-use development would be reviewed through a zoning review and would depend on the proposed fees which would be a calculation of the total value of the project on a sliding scale. He said that particular permit does not require a hearing. Mr. Clark felt the mixed-use type of development should be encouraged and asked if there was anything built into the schedule that rewards people for taking that risk. Mr. Satterstrom replied that there weren't any incentives in the proposed fee, but that the City Council could develop incentives by tracking reduced fees. He said there were other built-in incentives including smaller developed lot line adjustments, and single family lot variances. Tim Clark explained that with fewer lots available for development, developers are maximizing the property for each individual house, and are not trying to accommodate affordable housing for young families starting out. As lots become more expensive in a heightened market, the opportunity is minimal for young families to begin anywhere except in an apartment. Mr. Clark was concerned that there hadn't been any alternatives developed and proposed adjusting the fees to encourage the mixed-use type of development. Mr. McFall suggested that since the current new fee schedule, as presented, didn't take into account the mixed-use zone and residential component of the mixed-use zone as anything unique, it could be recommended for adoption as presented and still be brought back at a later date to have a new fee classification inserted for that specific type of use. Sandy Amodt felt she needed more information and had too many questions. She asked to meet with Ms. Nelson before making a decision on the new fee schedule. Fred Satterstrom said it was critical to have the Committee pass the schedule prior to the next Council meeting. The decision was to bring the issue to the Operations Committee again on December 1, 1998. 1999 Budget & Tax Lew Brent McFall and Finance Director, May Miller, brought an update to the Committee of the questions and answers that Council Members and staff had after the presentation of the Mayor's proposed budget for 1999. They handed out a Budget Review to Committee Members. Mr. McFall said one proposed suggestion was a relatively minor adjustment in the amount of $15,000 to the appropriations for contracting for the Downtown Partnership. May Miller responded to the earlier question regarding overtime of how much was spent and what the situation looked like. She said staff went back and looked at the entire City's 1997 and 1998 proposed budgets and the actual budgets, what was spent year to date and what the picture would be if that trend were to continue to year's end, and then also looked at next year's recommended overtime budget. Police and Fire appear to be over budget because of budgeting for 100% salary for 12 months for every single position. However, the City and each department has been within budget. Ms. Miller said several things occur that cause overtime to be necessary —illnesses, disability, call-back, positions not being filled, positions leaving that wasn't expected. Another item of discussion was the tax levy and Referendum 47. Right now the budget only includes the minimum amount of 0.85% which is the Implicit Price Deflator. The incremental increase in Property Tax is $129,123, which is the amount allowed within Referendum 47 without any additional increase. The estimated levy rate would be 2.88 and yields $431.64 on a $150,000 house that a citizen would pay in property tax. Council has the authority to levy from levels of 1% to 6%. A third question was what would the costs be of adding two new Police Officers. Total costs would be $213,041. The cost of adding one Arson Investigator would be $144,278. Ms. Miller said an Ordinance would be brought before the next Operations Meeting that would then go before the Council on Dec. 8, 1998. The Ordinance is the preliminary budget document plus or minus any adjustment. A sample of a tax rate Ordinance will be brought to the OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES November 3, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, Roger Lubovich, May Miller, Tom Brotherton PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana The meeting was called to order by Chair, Judy Woods, at 3:33PM. There was one added item: Sale of Tri-Star Disposal to Waste Management. Approval of Minutes of October 20, 1998 Committee member, Tim Clark, moved to approve the minutes of October 20, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 10/31/998 Finance Director, May Miller, requested approval of the vouchers dated October 31, 1998 totaling $2,677,829.87. Committee Member, Sandy Amodt, questioned where the water used at the Golf Course was located in the check vouchers. Director of Operations, Brent McFall, answered that the City has its own on-site well dedicated for irrigation, and does not buy municipal water for that purpose. There are also some water rights out of the river that is used for irrigation on the par three course. The only associated cost is that of electricity. Tim Clark moved to approve the vouchers dated October 31, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Public Defense Services Contract Brent McFall presented the two-year Public Defense Contract. The City has been contracting with the firm Stewart & Goss who are concluding their fourth year of services as the Public Defenders. The contract expires December 31, 1998. Mr. McFall proposed that a new two-year contract, beginning January 1, 1999, be entered into with the same firm. The firm is changing in that Mr. Goss is leaving the firm and the contract will be with Scott Stewart. Mr. Stewart is the member of the firm that provides those services to the City at this time. The contract provides for at least two defense counsel to be present at routine pre-trial calendars and up to four defense counsel to work on City cases. Compensation would be at the same level as the current contract, which calls for a flat fee of$16,500 per month for a total of$198,000 per year. Based upon the utilization of that fee schedule, there are about 2400 referrals a year to the Public Defenders at a cost of approximately $82.50 per case. The contract, as with the current contract, provides for a 90-day termination provision for either party. Sandy Amodt was curious as to how the effectiveness of an attorney's service is measured. Mr. McFall responded that it would be a matter of whether or not there were responses from defendants that they had not been adequately represented; whether or not the prosecutors on the other side of the adversarial process were indicating that public defense wasn't a worthy opponent; or comments from the judges. Nothing like that has been received. Mr. McFall said all of the reports have been very good on the representation of these defenders. City Attorney, Roger Lubovich, added that the Public Defenders vigorously defend their clients' interests by following up with appeals. Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council authorization for the Mayor to finalize and execute a contract for public defense services with Scott Stewart for a term of two years in a form and with terms substantially similar to the proposed contract. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Adult Retail Establishment Moratorium —Resolution Roger Lubovich said the City of Kent has a code of ordinances regulating adult entertainment facilities in the City. The moratorium deals specifically with retail establishments of bookstores, videos stores, and novelty shops and the sale of over-the-counter merchandise. Both the City's zoning code and business license code for adult entertainment define these facilities as having 20% stock in trade or revenue in adult merchandise. If the businesses meet that definition, they are then regulated as adult entertainment facilities. The regulation involves the zoning and location of the facilities in the City and requires them to be 1000 feet from schools, churches, parks, libraries, and residential zones. The issue for the City is whether new businesses will be properly zoned when they come into the City and whether the 20% definition of stock in trade will be adequate. In a case involving the City of Tukwila in 1991, World Wide Video struck down the adult retail business regulation which defined these businesses as having 10% adult merchandise of stock in trade. The court said the City of Tukwila did not make an adequate showing of the negative impact of these facilities in the community. No studies had been conducted and there were no references to adequately show that these facilities had a negative impact. That finding raised the standard for location of the facilities. With a bookstore or video store the patron rents or buys a product and then takes it home. The court said that does not constitute a negative impact on the community. Mr. Lubovich said there has been increased interest in the Puget Sound region for larger scale retail merchandise facilities and a lot of communities are being caught off guard with inappropriate regulations. He is asking to adopt a moratorium that would prevent the filing of applications and the issuance of licenses for the development and operation of these types of facilities until his office has had an opportunity to review studies and materials and determine whether or not Kent's city code of 20% stock in trade is actually adequate to deal with the issue. Also, he did not know if enough studies from past cases had been identified dealing with these types of facilities. He said the intent with the moratorium would not be to prevent these businesses from coming into the City (it is unconstitutional to zone them out of the City), but to make sure when they do come, they're located appropriately so they don't impact a facility such as a school or church. Mr. Lubovich added there are no pending applications that has prompted his request for the moratorium, only his own review and concerns from other jurisdictions that were raised in discussions with those jurisdictions. A public hearing would need to be held within 60 days if the Council elects to adopt a moratorium. Mr. Lubovich recommended that a hearing be held at the next full Council on Nov. 17`h at which time the Council would decide whether or not to continue the moratorium. If the decision was to continue, another resolution would be adopted for the continuation. Reports and studies are being gathered and will be put in two large binders in the Council office for review. The reports will be addressed at the hearing so they will be part of the record. Tim Clark brought up the discussion that had been raised in the Public Works/Planning Committee of including in the Ordinance a consideration for shielding outrageous advertising and on-site signs. Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council passage of the resolution imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for and the issuance of any business license or any building, land use, or development permit, and further setting November 17, 1998 as the hearing date. The motion was seconded and carried. Sale of Tri-Star Disposal to Waste Management Brent McFall said he had received a letter from Tri-Star Disposal indicating that they are being sold to Waste Management, Inc. Tri-Star is one of two companies that the City has a contract with for waste collection services. The contract requires that any change in control or ownership must be consented to by the City of Kent. It also provides that approval cannot be unreasonably withheld. As Waste Management, Inc. is one of the major waste disposal companies in North America, Mr. McFall said he couldn't see any reason to withhold that consent. Tim Clark moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the transfer of ownership of Tri- Star Disposal to Waste Management, Inc. The motion was seconded and carried. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55PM. Public Safety Committee Minutes October 27, 1998 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Epperly, Chair, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: Chief Ed Crawford, Chief Norm Angelo; Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair, Connie Epperly, at 5:04PM. Approval of Minutes of October 13, 1998 Committee member, Tom Brotherton, made the motion to approve the minutes of October 13, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Approval of Boater Registration Fee Proiect Police Chief, Ed Crawford, asked the Public Safety Committee to approve the Boater Registration Fee Project. He said that the state legislature had assessed a yearly, by population, boater registration fee for boat owners in the state to go to the 39 counties. The counties then give a share of the money to municipalities or others that have a boater safety program. With the annexation of Lake Meridian, Kent started a boater safety program and was qualified by the State of Washington to be eligible for the fees. Kent has received a check for $34,946.60 to be used for boater safety projects on Lake Meridian. Chief Crawford said he was asking for approval to put the money into a special fund. The first purchase with the money was a waterproof speed measuring device to use in controlling the speed on the lake. Committee member, Sandy Amodt, asked where the measuring device would go and what it looked like. Chief Crawford said it was a hand held radar machine for the patrol boat and would be used other places throughout the rest of the year when it wasn't on the boat. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the Council to approve the request to establish a separate project to receive boater registration fees and to authorize expenditures as outlined by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0. Providing Apparatus Maintenance Services to District 11 Fire Chief, Norm Angelo, explained that fire equipment requires a lot of maintenance because the action from the fire ground depends on the dependability and accuracy of the apparatus and its supporting systems. Cities use automatic and mutual aid so it's in their best interests to make sure their neighbors are at the same level of preparedness they are. Chief Angelo said that for some time, Kent has been looking at the possibility of entering into relationships with other fire departments. He said Fire District 11, on the west hill north of Sea Tac, recently inquired whether or not Kent would be willing to maintain several of their engine type apparatus. He said the City Attorney has looked at the language of the contract and the commissioners from Fire District 11 are currently looking at the contract. The sum of acquired money would be $5-6,000 a year. Providing this service would build a bridge between Kent and Fire District 11 and also give Kent some experience with maintaining other people's apparatus. Working with other departments and having cooperative relationships should improve or enhance actual maintenance on apparatus through the synergy of existing resources and staff. Tom Brotherton questioned whether the City would be taking any undue risk if maintained apparatus had a problem. Chief Angelo said something could go wrong, and one of the things his department had looked at is liability insurance as it relates to the apparatus if it were in one of Kent's buildings and there was an earthquake or fire. In addition, Fire District 11 has named the City of Kent as an insured on their apparatus. If a piece of equipment carried on an apparatus was missing, and there was uncertainty about what had happened, insurance would cover it. Kent would be responsible for properly maintaining the apparatus to the degree of work to be done on it. Chief Angelo said services have been delineated out for Kent versus services that Fire District 11 would do. Contract language has been looked at by attorneys from both sides to ensure that each party would be appropriately held responsible for those things that they had control over. Tom Brotherton asked what other kinds of joint operations might be profitable. Chief Angelo responded that it is very common for Fire Districts to Cross train, share training resources and programs, facilities, classes, and come together to jointly make programs. One program, the Survival Kit program, is currently in for full funding and will expand through all the departments in King County. Chief Angelo said Kent's vision is to share with other departments the use of their Fire Bum Simulators. He said when departments use each other's equipment and experience similar procedures, the net result is benefit to the overall public. Connie Epperly thanked the citizens who had sent in checks to buy bicycle helmets. She said about $500 had been received. The meeting was adjourned at 5:18PM. REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES .................... . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION