Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 07/20/1999 aKii CIKnCnci Cty � nouee ........ Agenda xr CITY OF , 3 Mayor Jim White Counci/members Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling July 20, 1999 Office of the City Clerk , CITY OFJJSV L,S SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING VINVIC'T. July 20 , 1999 Mayor Jim White Council Chambers 7 : 00 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. Proclamation - National Night Out 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B . Approval of Bills C. King County EMS Regional Cooperative Purchasing Agreement - Authorization D. Laptop Computers Purchase - Approval E . Permit Process Additional Staff - Approval F . Technical Staff Positions, Furniture & Rental Fees - Approval 3 L! ;�'o'1 G. CLID 340 & 349 Bond Sales - Ordinance and Purchase Contract H. Justice Dept Grant for Emergency Preparedness Equipment - Approval I . Donation to Police Volunteers - Accept & Authorize Expenditure J. Stone Wood Final Plat - Approval 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. View Regulations - Approval B. Condominium Zoning Strategies - Approval C. Emergency Backup Generators Contract - Authorization D. Washington Economic Development Finance Authority Bonds - Resolution - ;E E . Co umaf 8 . BIDS A. Mill Creek Interurban Trail B. West Fenwick Handball Courts (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Labor Negotiations 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 Clerk' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725 . For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388 . 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) Proclamation - National Night out CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember W D� seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved. Discussion mot,,^ Action r ' , 6A. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of July 6, 1999 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through June 30 and paid on June 30 , 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on July 6 , 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 6/30/99 219428-219490 $1, 006, 213 . 99 6/30/99 219491-219957 2 , 350 , 185 . 27 $3 , 356, 399 . 26 Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 16 through June 30, 1999, and paid on July 2 , 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 7/2/99 Checks 236735-237113 $ 279, 186 . 61 7/2/99 Advices 81691-82307 805 , 207 . 87 $1, 084 , 394 . 49 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington July 6 , 1999 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, Woods and Yingling, Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Parks Director Hodgson and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 35 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO (LAKE MERIDIAN PARKING ISSUE) THE AGENDA Sara Boyer, 26931 150th Place SE, noted that she lives just east of Lake Meridian Park where "No Parking Signs" have been placed in the last two weeks . She explained that the signs cover about five blocks and apply from 12 : 00 noon to 8 : 00 p.m. She noted that most of the neighbors are unhappy with these signs and that a petition has been submitted to the Mayor for reconsideration. She requested that a meeting be scheduled at a fire station close to the neighborhood in the evening _ so that those interested can share their concerns and an agreement can be reached on a parking situation that would be acceptable to all concerned parties . Upon Council concurrence, Mayor White referred this issue to the Public Works/Planning Committee for discussion at their next meeting on July 19th. Charlotte Peery, (#5) 21740 84th Avenue South, noted that she is present tonight to address an ordinance that was recently passed regarding the Lake Meridian parking. She explained that the residents are appreciative of the Council ' s rapid response to the parking problems in this area but that it has created a problem for them when visitors come . She noted that the residents would like to have parking permits issued for which they would then be responsible for any visitors who come to visit . Mayor White reiterated for Ms . Peery that a Public Works/ Planning Committee is being set up to address this issue . 1 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 CHANGES TO (RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE) THE AGENDA Joseph Drake, 13476 SE 242nd Street, thanked the Council and Administration for their past support of Riverbend Golf Course and S . S .M.D. ' s manage- ment operation. He noted that about a year ago Councilmember Brotherton questioned whether Riverbend was a golf complex operated as a business or a complex operated as a park and no answer has been given. He requested that the Council and Mayor address that issue . He noted that a consultant, who had been hired- by the City, submitted a report and recommendations to the City and that those recommendations should be con- sidered. Mayor White thanked Mr. Drake for his comments . PUBLIC Introduction of Kent School District COMMUNICATIONS Superintendent. Mayor White introduced the new Superintendent of the Kent School District, Dr. Barbara Grohe . Dr. Grohe noted that before she made the decision to move across country, she investigated the Kent community and that one of the areas that is very important to her is the value communities place on public education and the investment it is willing to place in its children. She noted that it was very clear that the reason the Kent Schools enjoy such a fine reputation is the work of many people including the City Council . She noted that there are many partnerships between the School District and the City of Kent and that these partnerships can be expanded to make this an even better place for young people to live, grow and learn. She expressed her excitement about being in Kent and the possibility of generating additional projects that will help the young people become even better citizens of their communities . She noted that it is a pleasure to be here and that she looks forward to many years of working with the City of Kent . Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Jane Potocki of Employee Services has been selected as July Employee of the Month. He noted 2 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 PUBLIC that Jane has been involved in many employee COMMUNICATIONS programs including the City Central -Newsletter and the United Way Program. He also noted that she put together the successful Admin Lunch and Learn team and has been selected as the Wellness Program Chairperson for 1999 . He noted that Jane ' s dedication is a positive reflection on the Employee Services Department, the City of Kent, and the community as a whole . He then con- gratulated her for being chosen July Employee of the Month and presented her with a plaque . Jed Aldridge, Employee Manager, noted that Jane has a very contagious, outgoing personality and is a "can do" individual who represents the "Kent Cares" attitude . He also noted that she goes the extra mile in customer service. He congratulated her on being chosen employee of the month. CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through Q, CALENDAR with the exception of D, be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of June 15 , 1999 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) SANITATION Foxhall Short Plat Subdivision. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for the Foxhall Short Plat Subdivision submitted by Suncrest Homes, Inc . for continuous operation and maintenance of 185 feet of street improvements and 185 feet of storm sewers and, release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 27313 135th Avenue S .E . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N) Marina Pointe Two Condominiums. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for Marina Pointe Two Condominiums submitted by Marina Point II L.L. C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 2 , 044 feet of watermain, 1, 698 feet of sanitary sewer, and 1, 934 feet of storm sewers and, release of bonds after 3 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 -` HEALTH & the expiration period, as recommended by the SANITATION Public Works Director. The project is located at 5200 234th South Place . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 60) Promenade Two Condominiums. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for Promenade Two Condominiums submitted by Promenade II L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 977 feet of water- mains, 959 feet of sanitary sewer, and, release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located south of S . 228th Street between 53rd Place South and Lakeside Blvd. East . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6P) Village One Condominiums. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for Village One Condominiums submitted by Village I L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 2 , 982 feet of watermain, 2 , 513 feet of sanitary sewer and 1, 609 feet of storm sewer and, release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located in the vicinity of 53rd Place South, south of 228th Street . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6Q) Village Two Condominiums. ACCEPTANCE of the Bill of Sale for Village Two Condominiums submitted by Village II L.L.C. for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 218 feet of watermain, 808 feet of sanitary sewer and 783 feet of storm sewer and, release of bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located in the vicinity of S . 228th Street and Lakeside Blvd. East . STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) VACATIONS 32nd Avenue South Street Vacation STV-99-4 . Resolution No . 1542 established July 6, 1999, as the public hearing date for the application by Highline Water District, to vacate a portion of 32nd Avenue South, a dedicated, unopened street, lying generally north of that street' s inter- section with South 240th Street . 4 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 STREET Planning Director Harris noted that staff is VACATIONS recommending denial of this street vacation because there would be problems with the pro- perties which lie just north of the proposed vacation. He noted that the properties in the proposed vacation area have double frontage and that when a vacation only goes up to a certain point but doesn' t go all the way through, it becomes an Ad Hoc vacation for the rest of the area because it blocks any access from 240th north past the end of the proposed vacation. Mayor White opened the public hearing. Keith Harris, Manager of Construction and Planning for the Highline Water District, explained that the reason for requesting a street vacation is because this area is one of the higher crime areas in the City. He noted that when the new building was constructed, Highline Water District requested permission to build a fence across the inter- section with a gate, but the City of Kent rejected the request because it was still a public right- of-way. He noted that the only interests in this vacation are from the Highline Water District and the Midway Sewer District and that by doing the vacation they would be able to better secure their backyard area and keep it from being a haven for drug dealers, addicts and prostitutes . Upon Brotherton' s question, Keith Harris explained that Highline Water District owns property on both sides of 32nd Avenue and that a parcel across from the World' s Greatest Books store has been con- demned but that anyone could get in there and cut the fence so it would be safer to gate 32nd Avenue at South 240th Street . There were no further comments from the audience . ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. Mayor White requested City Attorney Lubovich to review for the Council the legal ramifications of vacating this portion of street . Lubovich noted that if both ends of the street are vacated, the 5 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 STREET City would have no access to its street . He VACATIONS emphasized that this street is a public road and if a vacation is granted, it needs to be for the entire street . Upon Amodt ' s question, Lubovich explained that last year the Council granted a street vacation to a portion of 32nd Avenue but that the vacation has not been consummated yet and granting the City a right-of-entry for this por- tion of the street would not be adequate unless the entire street is vacated. Lubovich explained for Amodt that this area could be closed for use as a road and used as an easement, the City could close the road and vacate that portion and if the City had a right-of-entry, it could be used as an unopened right-of-way but the problem is the road is paved and operating as a public right-of-way. He also mentioned that perhaps the adjoining property owners don' t understand that this vacation would close off the road. Planning Director Harris explained for Brotherton that the road is paved up to the north side of the Water District property with a dirt road further north. CLARK MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s recommendation of denial for the application to vacate a portion of 32nd Avenue South, a dedi- cated, unopened street, lying generally north of that street ' s intersection with South 240th Street, as referenced in Resolution No. 1542 . Brotherton seconded. Clark explained that, as a public safety matter, for security this is one of the access points so the City actually slows down its ability to police the area and that is why he is asking the Council to approve the Planning Director' s recommendation for denial of this street vacation. Amodt suggested that if the street vacation is not approved perhaps it should be sent to the Public Safety Committee for resolve . Yingling noted that he will vote against the motion because there is not much of a street in this location and that there are legal avenues that can be taken to 6 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 STREET protect whatever interests the City may have on VACATIONS this small street . He noted that there are major problems but there is a property owner who is willing to put in the work to help clean up that area. Upon a roll call vote, the motion failed with Clark, Orr and Woods in favor, and Amodt, Brotherton, Epperly and Yingling opposed. CLARK THEN MOVED to disapprove the Planning Director' s recommendation of denial for the application to vacate a portion of 32nd Avenue South, a dedicated, unopened street, lying generally north of that street' s intersection with South 240th Street, as referenced in Resolution No. 1542 ; and MOVED to vacate that street . Yingling seconded. Public Works Director Wickstrom noted that Midway Sewer District has a sewer utility in that right- of-way so there needs to be a reserve of an easement where the City can transfer the right to them. He also noted that money would be needed which is the usual value that would go into the pedestrian/sidewalk fund around school areas . Lubovich suggested that the City also reserve a right-of-access because the City would have absolutely no legal access to that street, if the vacation is approved. Mayor White suggested that this item be sent back to the Public Works/ Planning Committee to clean up the language . Clark then withdrew his motion. Brotherton seconded. The Council unanimously agreed to have this issue sent back to the Public Works/Planning Committee meeting. (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5B) 40th Avenue South Street Vacation STV-99-3 . Resolution No. 1540 established July 6, 1999, as the public hearing date for the application by Kentview L.L.C. to vacate a portion of 40th Avenue South, a dedicated street lying generally south of that street ' s intersection with 37th Place South and 40th Place South. 7 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 STREET Planning Director Harris explained that this VACATIONS street vacation is interesting because one of the conditions of the mitigated declaration of non- significance for the Kentview Planned Unit Development was that the applicant seek vacation for a part of this street and that a cul-de-sac be constructed. He noted that staff is recommending approval of the street -vacation with three conditions as follows : (1) The applicant shall deed to the City the necessary right-of-way for a cul-de-sac turnaround located at the southerly terminus of the remaining portion of 40th Avenue South; (2) The applicant shall construct said cul- de-sac turnaround to City standards including pavement, curb, gutter, cement concrete sidewalks, street lighting and drainage system; and (3) The applicant shall compensate the City for the value of the right-of-way in accordance with State Law and City Code . Said cul-de-sac shall be based on the net area of property exchanged (net area=vacated area minus cul-de-sac right-of-way) . Any monies received will go into the City' s School Pedestrian Walkway fund (R36) . Harris noted for Yingling that the purpose of the street vacation is so that the Kentview Planned Unit Development can develop the area and not have the right-of-way go right through the middle of their project . He noted that they have an interior street system that will curve around and also serve some large lots that Kentview PUD doesn' t own. Harris further explained for Yingling that the Jolly Rogers Motorcycle Club had access to the motorcycle raceway by going down this road. Upon Brotherton' s question, Harris noted that the large structures along this street are privately owned homes, but any other structures will be replaced by Kentview PUD when they build out . 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. 8 Kent City Council Minutes July 6 , 1999 STREET CLARK MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s VACATIONS recommendation to approve with conditions the application to vacate a portion of 40th Avenue South, a dedicated, open street lying generally south of that street ' s intersection with 37th Place South and 40th Place South, as referenced in Resolution No. 1540 ; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) 125th Place SE Street Vacation The Council held a public hearing regarding this matter on June 15th. After closing the Public Hearing, Council tabled the issue and asked that it be discussed at this meeting. CLARK MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s recommendation to approve with conditions the application to vacate a portion of 125th Place SE, a dedicated, unopened street, lying immediately north of SE 270th Street, as referenced in Resolution No . 1538; and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval, which conditions shall include without limitation reserving to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the necessary utility and construction easements over the northern portion of the pro- perty as requested by the Public Works Director at the June 15th meeting. Woods seconded and the motion carried. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) CONTROL Neighborhood Traffic Control Program. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1546 establishing the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program, as recommended by the Public Works/Planning Committee . STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) 272nd Corridor Interim Financing. APPROVAL and AUTHORIZATION of APPROPRIATE budget changes for interim financing of the 272nd Corridor, as reflected in the memorandum of the Public Works 9 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 STREETS Director dated June 21 , 1999, using the street fund balance with intent to issue bonds for the project at a later date . By deferring the formation of LID #351 to the beginning of next year, interim funding is necessary to pay for the work presently under contract . In addition, deferring the LID forced a review of the entire project budget forecast to determine what changes therein may also be necessary to either minimize the cash flow re- quirement or to address cost increases which would have otherwise been addressed via the regular budget cycle. SEWER (BIDS - ITEM 8A) Del Webb Pump Station. The bid opening for this project was held on June 30th with six bids re- ceived. The apparent low bid was submitted by Tri-State Construction in the amount of $2 , 032 , 380 . 15 . The Engineer' s estimate was $2 , 107 , 285 . 53 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Tri-State Construction. CLARK MOVED that the Del Webb Interceptor Relief Sewer Pump Station contract be awarded to Tri- State Construction for the bid amount of $2 , 032 , 380 . 15 . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. WATER (BIDS - ITEM 82) 3 . 5 Million Gallon Water Tank Safety & Painting Improvements . The bid opening for this project was held on June 30th with four bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Coatings Unlimited in the amount of $212 , 584 . 50 . The Engineer' s estimate was $233 , 082 . 75 . The Public Works Director recommends awarding the contract to Coatings Unlimited. _ CLARK MOVED that the 3 . 5 million gallon water tank safety & painting improvements contract be awarded 10 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 WATER to Coatings Unlimited for the bid amount of $212 , 584 . 50 . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) RECREATION Miscellaneous Grants. ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE a total of $26, 735 in grants from King County, Boeing Employees, and King County Arts Commission for recreation, cultural and youth employment activities in Kent . The Recreation and Cultural Division has received a variety of grants to provide services in Kent . They include $13 , 000 from King County for youth employment programs, $7, 110 from Boeing Employees for specialized recreation uniforms and equipment, $3 , 000 for Canterbury Faire from the Kent Community Foundation, and $6, 625 from the King County Arts Commission for Kent Arts Commission activities, including summer concert series, _spotlight series and Kent Kids Art Day. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) Bereiter House Renovation Grant. ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE the $25, 000 Landmarks and Heritage Grant from King County for painting and renovation of the historical Bereiter House . Parks Planning and Development staff applied for and won a $25 , 000 grant from the King County Landmarks and Heritage Commission for exterior painting and restoration of the historical Bereiter House . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Street And Park Tree Species List. ADOPTION of the official street and park tree lists and AUTHORIZE the Director of Parks and Recreation to add or remove trees from the approved lists . The official tree planting list was adopted in March 1971 and is outdated. Staff is requesting approval to use the attached list recently 11 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 PARKS & developed with the assistance of Sound Urban RECREATION Forestry and city staff . HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Human Services Roundtable Membership Termination. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1545 terminating Kent ' s membership in the Human Services Roundtable, as recommended by the Public Works & Planning Committee on June 21, 1999 . POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) DWLS Impound Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No . 3464 which repeals the City of Kent ' s existing ordinance and creates a new comprehensive ordinance relating to the towing of vehicles . This ordinance will also permit police officers to order the impound of vehicles driven by persons who have a suspended or revoked license . The vehicle would be held for a period of time depend- ing upon the number of prior similar offenses that the driver has committed. In general, a person will be able to redeem their vehicle from the tow company only after he or she obtains a valid driver ' s license and pays towing and storage fees . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER EPPERLY) Bicycle Helmets. The proposed ordinance requires that : (1) any person riding a bicycle, or a passenger on a bicycle, wear an approved bicycle helmet ; (2) the parent or guardian of a child, under the age of sixteen ensures that the child wears an approved helmet; (3) any person organiz- ing a bicycle race or other related event include notice of the helmet requirement on promotional materials; (4) any person who is in the business of renting or leasing bicycles provide an approved helmet to those who rent or lease; and (5) any person who is in the business of selling bicycle helmets sell only helmets that meet specific safety standards . Kevin Vandehev, 6201 S . 250th Place, Kent, noted that some rights and freedoms are guaranteed such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 12 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 POLICE happiness . He noted that people are guaranteed these rights as long as they don' t impinge on the rights of or harm others . He expressed that rights are taken away by piecemeal, one at a time, because a person cannot be trusted to do this, trusted with his freedom, or trusted to make decisions that have nothing to do with anyone else . Vandehey noted that if he chooses to ride a bicycle with the wind blowing through his hair, he should have the right to do so because he is not hurting anyone . He asked the Council to restrain from voting on this issue and voiced concern as to where this kind of legislation would stop. He noted that it may be for the bicycle helmet law today, being out in the sun without sunscreen tomorrow, or eating bad food. He encouraged the Council to not overlook the basic freedoms and rights of individuals to live their lives without a heavy hand of government over them. Epperly noted that this issue was brought to the Public Safety Committee by her. She also noted that the issue was very important to the Committee and that the strongest supporters were those who have been involved in a head injury or have had one of their family members involved. She ex- plained that these are people who thought nothing would ever happen to them but when it does they come to the City for help. She noted that many parents supported this issue because they know that when children go around the corner, the helmets go on the handlebars . She explained that the ordinance is a second set of eyes for the parents and that not many people realize the millions of dollars, tax and insurance, that are spent in taking care of head injury victims which become a life-long care . She encouraged her fellow councilmembers to support this issue for Public Safety. EPPERLY MOVED that a bicycle helmet ordinance be passed for the City of Kent as written; and that Ordinance No. 3465 be adopted. Orr seconded. 13 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 POLICE Yingling thanked Kevin for his comments and noted that he greatly supports all of Connie ' s efforts . He noted, however, that he has a problem with the way this particular ordinance is written because it seems a little heavy-handed, and that he does not want another government intrusion into his life . He noted that he was going to vote against this motion. Orr noted her support of this motion and that Connie ' s efforts are appreciated. She reiterated that the costs to the community are tremendous when one of these accidents happens because the insurance premiums go up and everyone pays . She noted that even if one person is saved from an accident or injury, it is worth it . She noted that it ' s more about education than writing a ticket and the way the ordinance is written, if a receipt is provided showing the purchase of a proper helmet, no one will be fined. Brotherton thanked Kevin for his comments . He noted that he shares the same concerns but that helmets are very important and this is a very beneficial law that he will support . Clark thanked Kevin for his input . He noted, however, that reality is by abusing a particular freedom the rights of the community are impinged upon because the community pays the taxes to pick up the bill on those who suffer brain damage from bicycle accidents . He noted that he will also be supporting Epperly' s motion. Amodt noted appreciation to Kevin for coming out to speak on this issue . She explained that she agrees children should wear helmets but adults should have the right to choose if they want to harm themselves or not . She noted that even though she partially agrees with the ordinance, she will support it . Upon a roll call vote, the motion to adopt a bicycle helmet ordinance (Ordinance No. 3465) for 14 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 POLICE the City of Kent , as written, passed with Yingling opposed. GOLF COURSE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) Riverbend Golf Complex Operational Options. APPROVAL and AUTHORIZATION to reduce staffing levels as recommended by the Parks Director/ Consultant and to not sell any portion of the golf complex except under the direction of the Council if the city is unable to meet the highest positive revenue benefit within 18 months (the highest revenue option will be implemented by the Mayor/ City staff, as recommended by the consultant, Economic Research Associates page 11-7) ; AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to implement the recommendation by the consultant which includes one of the following three : Facility Lease, Management Contract, and Golf Operations Concessions (City Operation is only an option if a short-term emergency exists whereby the city must operate the golf course until new management is secured) ; AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to administer and manage all provisions of the Riverbend Golf Complex Management agreement with SSMD, and if the criteria herein are not met , the City Council will take the necessary actions to ensure proper operation of the golf course by the end of year 2000 . Recently the City of Kent conducted a consultants study on the future direction of the Riverbend Golf Complex. The report outlined: methods to reduce expenses, recommendations on revenue enhancements through contractual changes, and stated that the only viable sale of assets would be the Par 3 . Staff is currently working on the reduction of expenses by lowering staffing levels . Staff will be presenting a proposal to the repre- sented staff prior to the Operations Committee meeting. Staff is also recommending that the Par 3 not be sold and staff begin irrigation improvements at the facility. Staff is further y requesting authority to implement future changes to the operation that have a revenue benefit to the city and golf complex. 15 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 TECHNOLOGY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) PLAN Re-Award Bid For Remote Access. APPROVAL of the Remote Access Purchase and Implementation Project to Network Computing Architects (NCA) , as recom- mended by staff . On April 20, 1999, the Operations Committee recommended approval to the low bidder for the City' s Remote Access and Implementation Project . The award was not successful . NCA submitted the next lowest bid and they have confirmed that their Purchase and Implementation Response to the City is still available . COUNCIL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 72) Council Meeting Date Change Regular meetings of the City Council are currently held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, except for the month of December in which there is only one Council meeting held on the second Tuesday during that month. The current schedule often creates conflicts with other official functions of Council members . By changing the regular Council meetings to the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, these conflicts would be minimized. Under the proposed ordinance, the one Council meeting scheduled in December would remain scheduled for the second Tuesday of the month. Orr noted that this item is coming to the Council through the Public Safety Committee with a recommendation to change the first meeting in August, but no times or date changes were given at that point . She explained that she and the City Attorney brainstormed to find out which way would be the best to go and that their suggestion is to change the meeting dates to the second and fourth Tuesdays to avoid some of the previous conflicts . She noted that National Night Out occurs the first Tuesday in August of every year but that Council has not been able to participate in it . She also noted that the elections are always on the first Tuesdays of the month so the meetings have always conflicted with them. She noted that this issue 16 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 COUNCIL has been discussed in the past but it would be too confusing to the public if one meeting a month were changed here and one meeting a month changed there . ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3466 changing the dates of regular Council meetings to the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Brotherton seconded. Woods noted that she doesn' t have a problem with the change but others would be impacted by it . She noted that committee meeting schedules would have to change to accommodate the date changes . She noted that the current schedule of meetings often create conflicts but the ramifications and how soon the change could be put into the schedule has to be thought out . Amodt noted that changing the dates conflict with her personal schedule which is not that flexible but she thought this was to be only a temporary change . Epperly explained that this item was discussed at the Public Safety Committee because of National Night Out , and it was suggested that either the first meeting in August could be eliminated or the date changed. Orr noted that she doesn' t have a preference one way or the other but when the issue was discussed with the City Attorney, the Council Secretary was asked to poll the councilmembers to get their preferences . She noted that it was her under- standing all of the councilmembers, with the exception of Clark, were in favor of proceeding but if there was some misunderstanding, she wouldn' t feel bad if it was voted down. Mayor White noted that the staff and Administration will work with the Council on this issue . Lubovich explained that if this ordinance is voted upon, the intent is to make it effective the beginning of August for National Night Out . He 17 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 COUNCIL noted that it does have a 5-day effective date so it is not subject to an initiative/referendum process but he suggested that the effective date be changed to August 1, 1999 so if the Ordinance is passed, the last meeting in July would still be held. Clark noted that he is against the motion because tremendous pressure is put on staff in a very short timeline to make the adjustments when their calendars have already run out . He noted that he will be voting against the ordinance because the short timeline makes it unreasonable . Orr noted that she has concerns about changing a meeting occasionally but she is happy to withdraw this motion and carry on business as usual . Orr then withdrew her motion. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through June 15 and paid on June 15 , 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on June 15, 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 6/15/99 218590-218796 $2 , 326, 884 . 35 6/15/99 218797-219427 1 , 878 , 600 .42 $4 , 205 , 484 . 77 Approval of checks issued for Payroll for May 16 through May 31, and paid on June 4 , 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 6/4/99 Checks 236037-236390 $ 268, 584 .44 6/4/99 Advices 80475-81114 806, 156 . 51 $1, 074 , 740 . 95 18 Kent City Council Minutes July 6, 1999 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll for June 1 through June 15 , and paid on June 15 , 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 6/18/99 Checks 236391-236734 $ 276, 167 . 15 6/18/99 Advices 81115-81690 836, 218 .44 $1, 112 , 385 . 59 REPORTS Operations Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting will be held on July 20th at 3 : 30 p .m. Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be Tuesday, July 13th at 5 : 00 p.m. Public Works/Planning Committee. Clark noted that the next meeting will be held on July 19th at �- 7 : 00 p.m. tentatively at the 272nd Street Fire Station to address the parking issue at Lake Meridian. He suggested that concerned citizens call to receive confirmation of the location for the meeting. Parks Committee. Woods noted that the next meeting is scheduled for July 20th at 4 : 30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 05 p.m. B7TfYLC-�`Qcpi Donna Swaw Deputy City Clerk 19 0 . • 101 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KING COUNTY EMS REGIONAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with King County. The 1998 - 2003 EMS Strategic Plan called for implementation of a Regional Purchasing Program for the purchase of EMS supplies and equipment . A Regional Purchasing Committee was formed to facilitate planning and designing this countywide program. The King County Regional Purchasing Committee developed a one- year pilot project that was initiated in March 1998 . Participation was voluntary for all providers and agencies were able to order any items identified on the product list . The pilot project concluded in March 1999 and the Regional Purchasing program went through a formal bid process for a one- year contract (with options to renew for two additional years) to select the most appropriate vendor for the program. By participating in this Cooperative Purchasing Agreement the City will be able to receive the best price available for medical supplies . The City Attorney' s Office has reviewed and approved this contract according to form for the Mayor to sign. 3 . EXHIBITS: Cooperative Purchase Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief & 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. 6C O City of Seattle King County Paul E.Schell,Nfayor Ron C.Sims,Fteeutive Seattle-King County Department of Public Health,^��^1 Alonzo L.Plough.Ph.D.,rIPH,Director � o Cooperative Purchasing Agreement In accordance with King County Code 4.16.110, King County and Kent Fire Department agrees to a cooperative governmental purchasing agreement for various medical supplies and equipment using King County's competitively awarded contract. King County therefore extends the use of its contract to Kent Fire Department to the extent provided by the law and upon the following terms: (1) Whereas the vendor has agreed to extend to Kent Fire Department the terms and conditions of King County's contract which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (2) Kent Fire Department accepts the terms and conditions of King County's contract with the vendor. (3) Kent Fire Department accepts responsibility for compliance with any additional or varying laws and regulations governing its purchases. Any purchase by Kent Fire Department shall be effected by a purchase order from Kent Fire Department and directed to the vendor. (4) King County accepts no responsibility for the performance of any of the purchasing contracts by the vendor. (5) King County accepts no responsibility for payment of the purchase price by Kent Fire Department. This agreement may be revoked at any time in writing by either party. Accepted for King County Accepted for Kent Fire Department David R. Leach Procurement Manager Title: Date: "� Date: Emergency Medical Services Division First Interstate Center 999 Third Avenue,Suite 700 Seattle.WA 98104-4039 (206)296-4693 Voice;TDD (206) 296-4866 FAX o INVITATION TO BID 'KING COUNTY - BID NUMBER: IT1 1650-ELA . _ PROCUREMENT DIVISION BID OPENING DATE: January 26, 1999 TIME:2:00. P.M 620 K.C. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE 500 4TH AVENUE PROCUREMENT DIVISION= LATER THAN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 2:00 P.M. E CTLY..% (206) 296-4210 BUYER: E. Arrowsmith:jp DATE ISSUED: January 7, 1999 REQUISITION #: 86950 TITLE: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES I Sealed bid proposals are hereby solicited and will be received only at the office of the King County Procurement Services in Room 62CI of the King County Administration Building, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 at anv time betwean 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, but no later than 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, January 26, 1999 for the requirements specified herein in accordance with "King County Bidding Instructions and Purchase Contract Conditions" attached hereto. All bids received will be opened in public at the time and place stated above and all bidders and other interested persons are hereby invited to be present. TERM PURCHASE REQUIREMENT FL shing Emergency Medical Supplies as requested by the Seattle- King County Health Department during the period from April 1 , 1999 to March 31 , 2000, in accordance with the following and the attached instructions, requirements, and specifications. CONTRACT VALUE: The estimated annual value of this contract is approximately $1 ,000,000.00. King County will not be limited, restricted or bound by this dollar value, nor shall the County be obligated to purchase any items contained in this ITB. (Continued on Page 2) NOTE.-INFORMATION W/THIN BORDERED AREA MUST BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED. This document can be made available from the ADA Liaison, at(206) 296-4210 or TOD M06) 296-0100, in large print,audio cassette,or braille. COMPANY DELIVERY GUARANTEED. �— DAYS AFTER ORDER AOr-,—c5S PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNT TERMS 1211 S lNJ � 15 pie 2 CITY FEDERAL.TAX ID NUMBER STATE ZIPCODE �Jl�i� PHONE ZAI 2 �a q - LI y o c� G>� qs-74-Z e))ZL c-Cl co AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (TYPE OR PRINT) TITLE SIGNATU 1 l O0�-r-rz,c c- -C &� [� i j O L�DA ((h1 I ST(Z rktl�Q Bid No. IT11650-ELA Page 2 Substitutes Est and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case SECTION I Airway Management/Suctlon Equipment 1 1 AIRWAY KIT, BERMAN TYPE, SET OF SIZE 1 -6 No Subs. $ 1.90 s I.Col ERCH 2 1 AIRWAY, BERMAN#1, NEONATAL No Subs. $ ,15 1$ 9,50 by-SO 3 1 AIRWAY, BERMAN#2, INFANT No Subs. $ . 15 is 7,50 96-y;O 4 1 JAIRWAY, BERMAN#3, CHILD No Subs. I S •15 IS 7 i c /SG-i 0 5 1 JAIRWAY, BERMAN#4, SMALL ADULT No Subs. 1 $ , 15 S 7,tFO SG-SeJ 6 I 1 (AIRWAY, BERMAN#5, MEDIUM ADULT No Subs. $ ,151s 7,S0 r36-SG 7-T 1 IAIRWAY, BERMAN#6, LARGE ADULT No Subs. S , IS S 7.5c D6-50 8 I 1 IAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#10 MEDIUM ADULT No Subs. ( $ 8 Is CS-49 9 1 IAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#11,ADULT No Subs. s , 8 8 S , ,:2 CS-` 7 10 1 1 IAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#12, LARGE ADULT INo Subs. S 8 F IS y?.a'i CS--I� 11 1 IAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#5.5, INFANT - INo Subs. S 8S S '1V.J4 CS-HS 12 1 JAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#6, SMALL CHILD I No Subs. S g,5 IS C5-y C 13 1 IAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#7, CHILD INo Subs. I S S 8 Is CS-4 9 14 l 1 JAIRWAY, HUDSON CATH-GUIDE#8, SMALL ADULT INo Subs. I s , P 81S H J.JY Cs-is 15 1 1LUBE JELLY, K-Y, SINGLE USE PACKETTES INo Subs. I S 07 1S 10,50 3X-15o 16 i 1 1LUSE JELLY, K-Y, 4ozTUBE INo Subs. s , ?,t IS 11,3F Gx-la 17 I 1 ISUCTION UNIT,AMBU POWERPACK I No Subs. S 3 1,L-b S 3&k.UC cAGr+ 18 + 1 1 SUCTION UNIT, LAERDAL COMPACT W/DISPOSABLE!No Subs. S 3 92•'7 0IS 3 9a,`70 EA c t4 19 ; 1 1SUCTION UNIT, S-SCORT III INo Subs. 1 $ 343.351$343.35 EACH 20 1 1 1SUCTION UNIT, SSCORT TEN INo Subs. S '+So.Co S 'Tio,E5 e q-I y 21 + 1 ICARRY BAG,V-VAC, YELLOW (No Subs. S Ia,95 s r f4 C H 22 1 (SUCTION CANISTER, RES-Q-VAC,ADULT No Subs. I Sa,50-4jr3t3 $ a Y-H 1,50 23 I 1 SUCTION CANISTER, RES-Q-VAC,CHILD !No Subs. S 8,3' 3 8.31 EACH 24 1 1 SUCTION CARTRIDGE, V-VAC INo Subs. I $ 10,90 S 10.J0 eQcm 25 1 1 I SUCTION, RES-Q-VAC,ADULT KIT I No Subs. Is 3 9.301 S 3,7,.gc GAC H 26 ! 1 ISUCTION, V-VAC STARTER KIT INo Subs. S ro1,4-5 S GIGS 9ACN 27 i 1 ISUCTION CANISTER, DISPOSABLE, 120OCC !No Subs. s 280 $ r 3q.-iol cs-4 r 28 1 ISUCTION CANISTER, DISPOSABLE, SOOCC No Subs. I $ 1.9S $ 19S.0 C5-100 29 1 ;SUCTION CATHETER,6 FR. s ,'t31$ y3XO C5-Icc !Brand Offered nei;oL_i va I 30 1 !SUCTION CATHETER, 8 FR, s ,+31$ 't3,a0 CS-tov I Brand Offered i'^9 01.1 iv C- I 31 1 ,SUCTION CATHETER, 10 FR, 13 It3 S 43.o CS-100 I Brand Offered m E O L-i N E i SUCTION CATHETER 12 FR. ! $_ y3Is f2,OA CS -IGo I Brand Offered m E O L-i ry E I -T 33 1 1 1 SUCTION CATHETER, 14 FR. is 't3 S +tIV CS-Iov + 1 Brand Offered rn Ero 1.w 9 I ! I 34 , 1 !SUCTION CATHETER, 16 FR. I s . H3 S Ii3,4 C5-100 I jBrandOffered m a O-i N E 1 35 1 1 ISUCTION CATHETER, 18 FR. s L+3 S y3,4-t CS-!OD I 18randOffered m 6 O L-I N F 36 1 1 ISUCTION HANDLE,HI-D BIG STICK No Subs, I s 1,32 S 69.0o CS-50 37 1 1 ISUCTION HANDLE,YANKAUER WITHOUT TUBING No Subs. s .SS S Ha•S CS-50 38 1 1 1 SUCTION LINERS, RICO No Subs. S C. S (0,15 PK-a't 39 1 1 ISUCTION TUBING, 1/4", LARGE BORE No Subs. S ,9a is 1461 OCI C5-50 40 1 1 SUCTION TUBING,3116" SMALL BORE No Subs. S 1,Ig IS 5-T CS--.7-0 41 I 1 !SYRINGE, BULB, 2oz INo Subs. s •$S S N�SCI G5-50 NAME OF OFFEROR: / � K7r) - IU( Bid No. IT116$0:ELA Page 3 Substitutes Est and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case SECTION If Diagnostic Equipment I 42 1 JELECTRODE, ELECTROBLUE, CASE11200 .30 is ';0mo -43-7 1 JELECTRODE, MEDITRACE DEFIB. 1310 P No Subs. is al,85 S '913 50 a)(-iolaxs 44 1 1 1ELECTRODES, CARDIOTRACE(BOX OF 150) No Subs. I$ 117,C.0,$ i'7&,co Gs-iolax 45 1 IOFFSET FOAM ELECTRODE, CASE OF 600 INo Subs. 1$ 1 G0,50 $ 1 00,S0 C5-GO 0 46 1 ELECTRODE, BIOTAC JR., BOX OF 60 No Subs. 1$ 13-50 S 135,0E C5-/O/,,-xs 47" 1 ELECTRODE, NDM SILVON, BOX OF 30 INo Subs. $ 9,551$ cljS 6X-30 48 1 ELECTRODE, SENTRY DIAPHORETIC, BOX OF 75 No Subs. $ y5"1$ 61,50 CS--1jexs 49 1 1 EKG CABLE,SENTRY,W/LEAD WIRES, LIFEPAK 5& No Subs. I$ ya,a cl$ '�,2,00 EACH 50 1 1 EKG PAPER, FITS LIFEPAK 10, BOX OF 3 No Subs. $ ,•7 $ 936.5o CS-70/3X.S 51 1 1EKG PAPER, FITS LIFEPAK 11, BOX OF 1 No Subs. I$ 3,50S 3.5C r3)-1 52 I 1 1EKG PAPER, FITS ILIFEPAK 5, BOX OF 3 jNo Subs. I$ 3.qy IS ,e19 BX-3 53 1 ELECTRODE/DEFIB GEL, 8.5 oz !No Subs. $ ?,501S 30,po ex-IR I Brand Offered ceaPH 1C Co�v TRU t_S $ i5 54 1 !ELECTRODE. MEDITRACE DEFIB, 1010P P i 1�.301 l a CO PX'10 55 I 1 ELECTRODE, MEDITRACE DEFIB, 1110E A 2 INo Subs. 1$ 13.-0 S 1 5.CC r?X-(o 56 I 1 RAZOR, GALLANT PREP, BOX OF 50 1 No Subs. $ 1?, S 17 7 G)c-Sp 57 1 !PROBE COVERS, SURE TEMP, BOX OF 250 INo Subs. Is S -29,93 C5- if 4xS 58 1 (PENLIGHT, DISPOSABLE,WITH PUPIL GUAGE INo Subs. IS ,80 IS CS-36, I '8randOffered PfZornAr., 1$ IS 59 1 1 PPROBE COVERS, THERMOSCAN PRO-LT, BOX 200 I 5; Ill:3&IS 59 yq C-5"f/13X5 60 I 1 PPROBE COVERS,WELCH ALLYN 9020 TYMPANIC, BOINo Subs. is 10,1+5 1$ 53.E CS-5j9x5-;2cc 61 THERMOMETER SHEATH,ADTEMP DIGITAL, BOX OF 1 100 No Subs. $ o�zf(o $ V'`f(o 3x-100 62 THERMOMETER SHEATH, FOR GLASS TYPE, BOX OF 1 100 No Subs. $ 2.79 1$ 0P.7q BX-i00 Brand Offered 0 C I I$ S 63 1 ITHERMOMETER, GLASS, HYPOTHERMIA WI CASE y I 3.$1 EACH 1 Brand Offered ic�0 C I I$ (S 64 1 1 ITHERMOMETER, GLASS, ORAL W/CASE I ,�!y $ yy Gr1GH 1 Brand Offered $ S 1 65 1THERMOMETER, GLASS, RECTAL W/CASE yy I$ ,q4 Et-)CN !Brand Offered (-) 0 C Is Is I 66 1 ;THERMOMETER,ADTEMP DIGITAL It 1-t, 1$ `-1,S5 EACH (Brand Offered Q, I Is 1$ 67 ! 1 [THERMOMETER, OTHER DIGITAL i 5.2p1 57.20 01CH !Brand Offered {-1fj} 1LA'?ft 1$ I$ 68 I 1 THERMOMETER, TEMP-A-DOT _ I , 09 I CI.GC 3X-100 69 1 1 fHERMOMETER, WELCH ALLYN SURETEMP, ORALlAiNo Subs. 7s 1.7?7,:2d$ 177,,14 c'7CH 70 1 'B/P KIT, ADC, MULTI-CUFF, SYSTEM 4 jNo Subs. i$ '},Copt$ 7q,6C EACH 71 1 iB/P KIT,ADC, MULTI-CUFF, SYSTEM 5 'No Subs. $ 35,7G`IS $5,70 EaCH 72 1 'B/P UNIT, ADC, DELUXE, ADULT No Subs. $ 15,701S 15,70 EACH 73 1 IB/P UNIT,ADC, DELUXE, CHILD No Subs. $ 13.Fo IS „ 0 EACH 74 1 !B/P UNIT,ADC, DELUXE, INFANT No Subs. $ 1 H,HS $ lq,115 rrACH 75 1 i B/P UNIT,ADC, DELUXE, LARGE ADULT No Subs. Is I 8,a 1$ 18.20 EACH 76 I 1 18/P UNIT,ADC, DELUXE. THIGH No Subs. $ ?a.a S 0?9.3 l;ACI-f 77 1 IS/P UNIT,ADC, HAND HELD STYLE,ADULT I No Subs. $ 41,3 1$ &fl,30 EAC-m 78 1 1 B/P UNIT,ADC, STANDARD,ADULT I No Subs. $ p,y I$ EACH 79 1 1 IB/P UNIT,ADC, STANDARD, CHILD No Subs. $ 1 ,70IS 0,7 EACN 80 I 1 B/P UNIT,ADC, STANDARD, LARGE ADULT I No Subs. $ ,S'is 15 L'-INCH 81 1 1 IB/P KIT,ADC, PRO'S COMBO No Subs. S ,'15 iS aS EACH 82 1 B/P CUFF&BLADDER, TYCOS,ADULT 1 TUBE INo Subs. $ ► ,551S 1 5 !<ACM 83 1 IB/P CUFF 8 BLADDER, TYCOS. CHILD 1 TUBE INo Subs. 1$ I fs IS 15.15 EAGH r L� + �� J--�►`✓ ► I Imo' l_/ Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA Page 4 Est. Quantity BLS ITEMS Substitutes and Appr. I Price per Equals Price per Unit Case I I 84 I 1 B/P CUFF&BLADDER,TYCOS,INFANT 1 TUBE INo Subs. IS 5,-5 7 IS I 7 EACH 85 1 1 IB/P CUFF& BLADDER,TYCOS,LARGE ADULT 1 TUBINo Subs. is ,?y,y015 a sq.HO Ea CH 86 1 1 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,HAND ANEROID W/ADULT CUFF INo Subs. $ 101, 2 5 IS 101,25 G"ICH 87 ! 1 IB/P GUAGE,TYCOS,HAND ANEROID ONLY INo Subs. Is 717,(o51S F-AcH 88 ! 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,SILVER RING,HAND ANEROID,A INo Subs. IS -7q,& $17 ,f 5- faCr/ 89 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,SILVER RING,ANEROID ONLY No Subs. $ (o0,`f 5 is 60 4 5 F4CH 90 I 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,SILVER RING,MULTI-CUFF KIT No Subs. $ 11,2.5 CIS 0 E14 CH 91 1 B/P UNIT, DIAGNOSTIX,WALL MOUNT No Subs. is O S 58.90 C-.1 Cry 92 1 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,FAMILY PRACTICE KIT No Subs. $ I fo,q0 $ 13 `;0 EACH 93 1 1 B/P UNIT,TYCOS,WALL MOUNT ANEROID I No Subs. I$ 9 5 $ c18,(o CAC 1-/ 94 1 1 STETHOSCOPE MEDASONCS, CARDIOBEAT ULTR INo Subs. S H 73.. $ 73,]C FSACH 95 I 1 SSTETHOSCOPE,SINGLE TUBE,DUAL HEAD No Subs. IS 41 y(A$ 4.1c OACH Brand Offered A 0 Q- Is Is 96 1 :STETHOSCOPE,SINGLE TUEE_SPRAGUE DUAL HEAD is 9, 5' 9,7 - eACI-/ Brand Offered PrIE i(.-E m 9:0 f c A L I is Is 97 1 1 (STETHOSCOPE,ADC,CARDIOLOGY SCOPE I 11P 57.9 C 3 5,?,Sc C-d cri 98 1 SSTETHOSCOPE.AOC,SPRAGUE,2 TUBE,22" INo Subs. IS ,(a0 IS '7,C o EaC1-f 99 1 1 ISTETHOSCOPE,ADC,ADSCOPE 1NoSubs. IS $, 0 $ 'k,90 E:ACt4 100 ; 1 (STETHOSCOPE,ADC, DUAL HEAD, 1 TUBE !No Subs. IS H,Lgcl$ .-fo Fa1C -f 101 1 1 )STETHOSCOPE,ADC, DUAL HEAD, 1 TUBE,PEDIAT!No Subs. IS 5,11CIS 5-�o GACF-1 102 ! 1 !STETHOSCOPE,ADC, NURSESCOPE !No Subs. is 3, IS 3,;0 aAch-1 103 1 1 1 STETHOSCOPE,LITTMANN,MASTER CARDIOLOGY INo Subs. IS 1 -0-),7 T1$1aa.7 5 rACH 104 i 1 ISTETHOSCOPE, LITTMANN,CARDIOLOGY II S.E. I No Subs. 1$ 165,?CIS 105.9C Ei}CH 105 1 1 ;STETHOSCOPE,LITTMANN,CLASSIC 11 INo Subs. 1$ Lyq. 9 IS g9.5'S E,1CH 106 , 1 SSTETHOSCOPE,LITTMANN,MASTER CLASSIC II 1No Subs. $ G?.$ I$ ,SC IrACcI 1071 1 STETHOSCOPE,LITTMANN, SELECT INo Subs. is 31,10 IS 1,1 EACri 1081 1 IRING CUTTER,ADC INo Suos. IS 1►f, S 1 a )5"4eH 109 1 !SCISSORS, BANDAGE,STAINLESS,7 1/4" 1 No Subs. IS ! I$ f1CH I Brand Offered - IS $ 110 1 1 1 SCISSORS,ALL PURPOSE EMT,7 114" Gx- 10 18rand Offered HOC- I IS Is SUBTOTALi SECTION III I 15 I Immobilization/Extrication i 111 1 !C-COLLAR, LAERDAL STIFNECK,ALL SIZES C, SO A 395',C . CS-SO 1121 1 IC-COLLAR, LAEROAL, SELECT ADJUSTABLE !No Subs. I$ 10,Co 1S533.5 CS-5C 113 1 iC-COLLAR,AMBU PERFIT,ALL SIZES No Subs. IS 14,&0 IS 9G C C CS-90 114 : 1 C-COLLAR,AMBU PERFIT,ACE ADJUSTABLE No Subs. !$ 0 IS 0 5g,e C,. C S'--;C 115 1 ;HEAD IMMOBILIZER, STA-BLOK ;No Subs. 1$ 3. &q 'S 00,'7 Gx-3C iv 'HEAD : ^'O8'LtZER, M21j n:SongABED'N!HEAD No Subs. IS ,07 S.209.0G CS-Ico 117 1 �HEAD IMMOBILIZER,LAERDAL,HEADBED II No Subs. ;5 3.8 q S:3 £c CS-icc 113 I 1 )HEAD IMMOBILIZER,FERNO,HEADHUGGER INo Subs. Is 4,1 0 IS y ,c C CS-l0 0 1 19 1 1 HEAD IMMOBILIZER, HEAD-ON SYSTEM,W/STRAP I No Subs. is &Li U IS 1 • C 0 CS-a0 P"4 ✓~ 120 1 ;HEAD IMMOBILIZER,FERNO UNIVERSAL#445 INo Subs. IS Qq IS q GiaCri 121 ! 1 (HEAD IMMOBILIZER, BASHAW iNo Subs. $ s E,,4CH 122 , 1 !HEAD IMMOBILIZER, LAERDAL,HEADBED II,PADPA INo Subs. $ ,q I$ 5,L43 P4110 123 1 )IMMOBILIZATION BOARD,PEDIATRIC, FERNO PEDI-INo Subs. is P)1, G $ 011.6U ;riCH 124 j 1 I IMMOBILIZATION BOARD, PEDIATRIC,LSP/ALLIED INo Subs. IS 1C1 $ I C) EACH 1251 1 (IMMOBILIZATION DEVICE, FERNO KED INo Subs. $ I I $ 111•Sa F.�CH 126 , 1 IMMOBILIZATION DEVICE,IRON DUCK, I.D.EA. No Subs. $ Q 5',q S ft 90 F-AC-, 1 127 1 1 1TRACTION SPLINT,KENDRICK TRACTION DEVICE INoSubs. IS r7S,? 1$ gvqC1-1 1281 1 ITRACTION SPLINT,FARETEC QD-4 'No Subs. 1$ 1)y,00 $ 114,DO F-41,rH 1291 1 ITRACTION SPLINT,FERNOTRAC INo Subs. $ S U 15 f Svc cF16H 1301 1 1TRACTION SPLINT,MINTO SAGER,FORM III,SINGL I No-Subs. IS 1$ I EACrl 131 , 1 ITRACTION SPLINT,MINTO SAGER, FORM III, BILATEINo Subs. IS 076,DO!$A 7k,OO E!a CH 1321 1 TRACTION SPLINT,MINTO SAGER, INFANT BILATE I No Subs. $ ov?1 00 IS al 0o FJaGH 1331 1 ISPLINT.CARDBOARD, 12"WITH FOAM PAD INo Subs. IS 7T IS f7 f,D c CS-10 V I 1 Brand offered t_ A Is is NAME OF OFFEROR: /��' Lei = I i ( ' Bid No. IT1165.0-SLA Page 5 Est. Quantity BLS ITEMS Substitutes and Appr. Price per Equals Price per Unit Case I 134 1 SPLINT,CARDBOARD, 18-WITH FOAM PAD 1" I l• I P.0 CS-i00 Brand offered 1-1 P I 15 Is 135 1, 1 1SPLINT,CARDBOARD,24"WITH FOAM PAD I CS-SL Brand offered L I5 s 136 1 1 SPLINT,CARDBOARD,36"WITH FOAM PAD ( 6,50CS-SO Brand offered L s Is 137 1 1 SPLINT,SAM SPLINT,4 1/4"X 36" /O,,0 CS-/,2 138 1 1 ISPLINT,SAM SPLINT,4 1/4"X 18" I No Subs, s Is Ov GS-aH 139 1 ISPLINT,SAM SPLINT,FINGER SAM No Subs. Is s gX.1p 140 i 1 1SPLINT,VACUUM,HARTWELL,EVAC-U-SPLINT,3 PI I No Subs. IS s, 31, r1a c11 141 1 1 (SPLINT,VACUUM,HARTWELL,EVAC-U-SPLINT,2 PIINo Subs. IS s al0,- GJqCH 142 1 1 !SPLINT,VACUUM,EVAC-U-SPLINT,MATTRESS,6 H I No Subs. !$ y ,00 $HHH,06 G,HCr! 143 1 1 SSPLINT,VACUUM,EVAC-U-SPLINT,MATTRESS,PE INo Subs. Is a1 S CIS 935,C C EAG.H 1441 1 !SPLINT,VACUUM,MDI IMMOBILE-VAC,MATTRESS INo Subs. IS CO i$ a Co �GH 145 1 1 (SPLINT,VACUUM,MDI IMMOBILE-VAC, PED'S MATT INo Subs. Is 10G,co S $ 1 Oro.&5 NCH 146 1 1 !SPLINT,VACUUM,MDI IMMOBILE-VAC, EXTREMITY jNo Subs. IS 10,10 $17 !0 EACH 147 1 1 !SPLINT,VACUUM,MDI IMMOBILE-VAC, DELUXE EXT No Subs. IS $�1 e(ACH 148 1 1 !SPLINT,VACUUM,MDI IMMOBILE-VAC,MATT/ETRE No Subs. Is 'i C 5 S 'G. tr:;GN jI No Subs. IS Y 24t4.q.1-I$ ISECTION IV I ITOTAL %Y S'A q) I.V.Equipment And Supplies ! I i 149 1 I I.V.SOLUTION, 0.9 SODIUM,1000CC BAG Baxter I 1 1, ! 1 CS-i:z 150 1 ISHARPS CONTAINER, B-0,1.40T INo Subs, s 1$S4.rl 0 CS-3Cc 151 1 ISHARPS CONTAINER, B-0,3.30T INo Subs. Is lS 4,70 CS-�`1 152 1 SHARPS CONTAINER, NEEDLEISYRINGE KEEPER B No Subs. s '7 3 103, CS-I y�t 153 I 1 ISHARPS CONTAINER,P2 SHARPS SHUTTLE I No Subs. is $ H fax:-94 154 1 1 SHARPS CONTAINER, SAGE, 1 QT I No Subs. 1$ 1,H S. 0 CS-ico 155 1 SSHARPS CONTAINER, SAGE, 1/2 GAL. No Subs. Is - $ GS-gyp 156 1 1 (SHARPS CONTAINER, SAGE,5 QT. I No Subs. IS IS Cot,-I C5-.70 157 11 iSHARPS CONTAINER, SHARP TRAP INo Subs. !S I, 1 IS 10 Q CS-I(-,C 158 1 1 !SHARPS CONTAINER,PRO-TEC,1 GAL INo Subs. Is V150 I$ H5,0c CS-1`5 !No Subs. Is Is I I SECTION V 1 i TOTAL s a6 j Kits,Trauma Boxes and Cases 1 1 ! I I 159 i 1 !TRAUMA BOX, PLANO 747M I. �,r<C 1 $S,(„c NCH 160 1 1 ITRAUMA BAG,PACIFIC EMERG.PROD.,A3000 No Subs. Is ? C.Is .91) 'C.c CH 161 1 ITRAUMA BAG,PACIFIC EMERG. PROD.,A 500D INo Subs. IS H s H E,:4CH 162 i 1 ITRAUMA BAG, PACIFIC EMERG.PROD.,A 600 INo Subs. IS ?("q,501$ t,5 J.:4-) r! 11Jo Subs. i5 is I SECTION VI TTOTAL i5j.iSl$ 29 1 1$ Oxygen Resuscitation I I I 163 i 1 OXYGEN KIT, UNWED,QUICK ACCESS PACK,0 TANK G II )9�,BU 69 CH 164 1 1 1OXYGEN KIT,UNWED,QUICK ACCESS PACK,JUM No Subs. Is 1 Is I$ 9 EACH 165 1 1 (OXYGEN KIT, UNWED,AIRWAY PACK, D TANK No Subs. is s EACH 166 1 1 OOXYGEN KIT, UNWED,AIRWAY PACK,JUMBO 0 No Subs. s 10 S166,95 �-:AC1-1 167 1 (OXYGEN KIT, IRON DUCK BREATHSAVER BAG,D T No Subs. 1$ qgpols ?0 aAGH 168 1 JOXYGEN KIT, IRON DUCK,ULTRA BREATHSAVER B No Subs. IS e210,5 $ a10 5c GH 169 1 IOXYGEN KIT, IRON DUCK UNIV.PREC, BREATHSA No Subs. S �7 s la�,7 i=��GH 170 1 1 IOXYGEN KIT, LSP PORTABLE RESUSCITATOR No Subs. s S $S 1 I;9Cr7 171 1 1 OXYGEN KIT, LSP PORTABLE RESUSCITATOR,CAS No Subs. 1s $ 99,35 EHGH 172 1 IOXYGEN KIT,TEHEMA SUPER LITE, D TANK No Subs. s COT,ca0 S t tF-AGH 173 1 OXYGEN KIT,TEHEMA SUPER LITE, E TANK No Subs. Is $ r71,9 5 e?Gy 174 1 IOXYGEN KIT,MDI OXYGEN PACK No Subs. s 1 la,50 S it 2.5v e.'Cy0y 175 1 IOXYGEN KIT, IRON DUCK OXY-PACK,D TANK No Subs. s 2,3 5 $ 39,35 9,qGN 176 1 !OXYGEN KIT, IRON DUCK OXY-PACK E TANK No Subs. 1$ 32,'7 s 3T,75; aGi CH 177 i 1 ;OXYGEN REGULATOR, LSP/ALLIED,2 DISS OUTLET I No Subs. Is a ,UO S I96,00 jFACH Bid No. IT11650-ELA Page 6 Substitutes Est and Appr. Price per r Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case 178 1 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, LSP/ALLIED, LITER FLOW ON No Subs. $ I 9,00 1$ 11 ao c'l�C1a 179 { 1 IOXYGEN REGULATOR,ALLIED/SPECTRUM, 2 DISS 0 INo Subs. $ IS 9'7'oo EACH 180 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR,ALLIED/SPECTRUM, LITER FL No Subs. $ Is Z3.9 F-1qC H 181 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, BVIALLIED,2 DISS OUTLETS No Subs. $ -c$ Y. NCH 182 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, B&F/ALLIED, LITER FLOW ON No Subs. $ $ EACH 183 1' OXYGEN REGULATOR,AMBU,2 DISS OUTLETS No Subs. $ 60.?,1715 $ .9 RCN 184 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR,AMBU, LITER FLOW ONLY No Subs. $ & $ E 4C-r4 185 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, SPIRACLE ORO2,2 DISS OUT No Subs. $ 10(f,75 $ 10 ,75 EAC 4 186 1 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, SPIRACLE OR02, LITER FLO No Subs. $ C 3 $ ►oo C S 41 187 1 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, PURITAN SENNETT, 2 DISS O 1 No Subs. $ Co Oo IS 3 Co,C EACH 188 1 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, PURITAN SENNETT, LITER FL INo Subs. $ -7 ',95i$ '7 .9 Ea r-H 189 1 IOXYGEN REGULATOR, 0-TWO SYS, SQ, 2 DISS OUT No Subs. $ 118 1$ 1 EACH 190 1 1 1 OXYGEN REGULATOR, O-TWO SYS, SQ, LITER FLO )No Subs. $ q 0015 9 1,co Eta c H 191 1 1 JOXYGEN GUAGE, LSP, CONTENTS GUAGE I No Subs. Is vq,17s1 .2275 r i4CH 192 I 1 IOXYGEN GUAGE, SPIRACLE OR02, CONTENTS GUA INo Subs. $ 1$ 9-00 EACH 193 1 1 'OXYGEN GUAGE, PURITAN SENNETT, CONTENTS G No Subs. $ 17,001$ ,00 6ACH 194 1 1 IBVM, LAERDAL SILICONE REUSEABLE,ADULT BASIC INo Subs. 1$ 13a.99 I$ 13a.19 EgCH 195 1 1 IBVM; DISPOSABLE,AMBU SPUR,ADULT No Subs. is 1:Z6p I$ Poi,ao CS-ire 196 1 1 JBVM, DISPOSABLE,AMBU SPUR, CHILD No Subs. IS 15,CC1$ Vol GC CS-16; 197 1 1 BVM, DISPOSABLE,PURITAN BENNETT DMR,ADULT INo Subs. 1$ 10,501$ G3,0o CS-G 198 1 1 BVM, DISPOSABLE,PURITAN SENNETT DMR, CHILD No Subs. is $ C13.9c C5-Co 199 1 IBVM, DISPOSABLE, LSP,ADULT I No Subs. I$ 16,1SI$ 60,9G CS-r 200 1 1 1 BVM, DISPOSABLE, LSP,CHILD I No Subs. $ lyso $ IUD C5-(p 201 1 1 BVM, DISPOSABLE, HUDSON LIFESAVER,ADULT No Subs. $ $ 9 aT0 CS-CO 202-7 1 JBVIVI, DISPOSABLE, HUDSON LIFESAVER, CHILD INo Subs. 9,01&0 CS-(� 203 1 JBVM, DISPOSABLE, RUSCH,ADULT No Subs. $ f 1$ r7<30 Cs-( 204 1 jBVM, DISPOSABLE, RUSCH, CHILD No Subs. 205 1 1 JBVM, DISPOSABLE,LAERDAL,THE BAG,ADULT INo Subs. $ 1 O. $ , CS-$ 206 1 rBVM, DISPOSABLE, LAERDAL,THE BAG, CHILD No Subs. I$ 1 k,9 ro 1$ Co CS-T 207 1 jBVM MASK LSP CUFFED MASK ALL SIZES No Subs. $ IS " EACH 208 1 1 jBVM MASK KING DISPOSABLE CUFFED,ALL SIZES No Subs. I$ I$ H UC CS•,;>0 209 1 1 IBVM MASK AMBU DURACLEAR DISPOSABLE,ALL SI i No Subs. Is 5"ga is y SIC CS-0 0 210 1 1 JBVM MASK LAERDAL SILICONE, #5 ADULT !No Subs. 13 IS 30,97 UGH 211 1 1 IBVM MASK, LAERDAL SILICONE, #3 CHILD ;No Subs. 1$ V5, $ .? E-'lCH 212 1 !OXYGEN CYLINDER,ALUMINUM, D TANK,WITH TOGGLE $ 61,00 iS (pi,00 EACH !Brand Offered ()EL-L-1roiZ i 213 i 1 OOXYGEN CYLINDER,ALUMINUM,JUMBO D,WITH TOGGLE A CH Brand Offered 214 1 'OXYGEN MASK,-BAXTER AIRL'•FE, MEDIUM CONC,AOINn Subs. 1$ 15 SD C5-SO 215 1 IOXYGEN MASK, BAXTER AIRLIFE, MEDIUM CONC, PE;No Subs. $ 1$ 5-0 C 5-50 216 1 JOXYGEN MASK, BAXTER AIRLIFE, NON REBR,ADULTiNo Subs. 1$ Is C5"50 217 1 OXYGEN MASK BAXTER AIRLIFE, NON REBR, PEDI INo Subs. $ Q Is CS-50 218 1 1 IOXYGEN MASK, HUDSON, MEDIUM CONC, ADULT INo Subs. $ Co? $ 5'0 CS-_50 219 1 1 IOXYGEN MASK, HUDSON, MEDIUM CONC, PEDI INo Subs. IS I$ 0 CS"]Q 220 1 1 IOXYGEN MASK, HUDSON, HIGH CONC, #1061,ADULT No Subs. IS I ,C $ 50,50 C.5-SO 221 ' I JOXYGEN MASK, HUDSON, HIGH CONC, #1060,ADUL No Subs. IS 1,0 a $ /,00 05•50 222 I 1 IOXYGEN MASK HUDSON, HIGH CONC, #1059,ADULT No Subs. $ I,a $-6,1,50 CS-5 0 223 I 1 JOXYGEN MASK HUDSON, HIGH CONC, #1058, PEDI No Subs. $ ,3'7 $ W 0 CS-50 224 j 1 1 OXYGEN CANNULA, aAX-TER AIRLIFE,ADULT No Subs. $ , q 1 $ 9010 C•-50 225 1 1 IOXYGEN CANNULA, HUDSON, #1103,ADULT No Subs. $ 3 $ 19,50 C5-501 226 1 1OXYGEN CANNULA, HUDSON, #1104,ADULT No Subs. S $ 0 G5`$(J 227 J 1 (OXYGEN CANNULA, HUDSON, #1826, PEDI INo Subs. $ $ 15g,50 C 5-SO 228 1 OOXYGEN SUPPLY TUBING, T LENGTH, BAXTER lNo Subs. $ $ CS-SQ 229 1 (OXYGEN SUPPLY TUBING, 7'LENGTH, HUDSON I No Subs. is . $ 15,570 C5-50 TOTALS 13, $510 SI I 1 NAME OF OFFEROR: L -1. ' � ' � � Bid No: IT1 1850-ELA Page 7 , ( Est. Quantity BLS-ITEMS Substitutes and Appr. Price per Equals Price per Unit Case SECTION VII Patient Transport Equipment 2301 1 BLANKET,DISPOSABLE,YELLOW POLY Is ?.a 0 QO CS-of 0 231 1 1 BLANKET,DISPOSABLE,PROTECT-A MED,YELLOW No Subs. Is 3.Li CSS Ca9,0o CS-o"?O 232 1 1 BLANKET,REFLECTIVE MYLAR,84'X 54- No Subs. IS 1,65 IS CjX-I Brand Offered' PO(.A Z t E L l7 Is S 233 1 1 BLANKET,WOOL BLEND O (3X-10 Brand Offered A(>1 N W OO t_ 1V I IS S 234 1 BLANKET,ACRYLIC is '"l, C.5-cp Brand Offered -N- Q FA S is 235 1 1 ISTRETCHER SHEET,FITTED,DISPOSABLE C14M it 117 �5 I.TAl '', CS-Sv Brand Offered is I S 236 1 1 1 STRETCHER SHEET,FLAT,DISPOSABLE i,% I o0 I 1 G,o CS-50 Brand Offered t OI CT I 1$ IS 237 I 1 I PILLOW CASE,DISPOSABLE,TISSUE C-Sljoo I q,q S CS-10 0 Brand Offered T Z00-CT I S $ 2381 1 PILLOWCASE,DISPOSABLE,WATERPROOF C I19 5,/o CS-a0 0 Brand Offered TN 1ZC L-, T IS $ 239 1 1 BABY BUNTING,REFLECTIVE MYLAR.STERILE 1 I eAC-H 240 1 1 1 MAST TROUSER,LSP/ALLIED,ADULT IN Subs. S $31,9,4 EA C-H 241 j i 1 MAST TROUSER,JOBST GLADIATOR I No Subs. IS sinSolsGic, V49CH 242 1 MAST TROUSER,DAVIO CLARK INo Subs. IS o IS EfgGM 243 1 WIPES,SUPER SAKI CLOTH,6'X 6 3/4',TUB1160 No Subs. S S CS-I7/TT,Ab,S 244 1 WIPES,SOS,8'X 11',INDMDUAL PACKETTE No Subs. Is ;Ij S I ,0 CS-50 245 1 1 BASKET STRETCHER,FERNO,MODEL71 No Subs. 13 0 $ EAACH 246 1 1 1 BASKET STRETCHER,FERNO,MODEL 71S No Subs. S S EACH 247 1 1 STAIR CHAIR,FERNO MODEL 40 No Subs. IS 2481 1 1 STAIR CHAIR,FERNO MODEL 107 No Subs. $ 5r.1.90 S o.4 eA C}-1 249 1 1 IMEDI-PAC RESCUE SEAT I No Subs. IS 17 S Z�9 CH 250 j 1 ISCOOP STRETCHER,FERNO No Subs. IS I 5g.v Hs s so,D r e,-lr- 251 1 1 1 HARTWELL,COMBICARRIER No Subs. 1S -171,95 13321,115 CM 252 ' 1 1 FOLDING STRETCHER,FERNO MODEL 12 1 No Subs. S L'015 0 r--A C H 253 I 1 1 BACKBOARD,FERNO MILLENNK 16' 1 No Subs. 15 C GIS 1 0 0 o-A CH 2541 1 1 BACKWARD,FERNO MILLENNIA18' 1 No Subs. IS C 0013 Cr NCH 255 1 t 1 BACKBOARD,HARTWELL COMBICARRIER INo Subs. IS '3-,7t.j,5j3 21,15 F�CH 256 1 1 BACKBOARD,IRON DUCK ULTRA-VUE,16- 1 No Subs. IS 01 S L 0,q G H 257 BACKBOARD,IRON DUCK ULTRALOC,WITH PINS INo Subs. IS H .od S . ,O F-AG1-i 258 1 1 1BACKBOARD,IRON DUCK ULTRALOC,WITHOUT PINSINo Subs. i$ -aq.CO IS I"tio F,t7 UGH 259 t iaACKBOARD,NAJO REDIROLL,t6',WrrH PINS INo Subs. IS 10 S 1 oq,7c5 EACH 260 1 BACKBOARD,NAJO R EDIROLL,16%WITHOUT PINS I No Subs. 13 1 05.0 S I o 5.00 r-H 261 1 1 BACKBOARD,NAJO REDI-WIDE.18-WITH PINS INo Subs. 13 1-20 '7 IS 1?0 e!�AGH 262 ! 1 1AACKBOARD,NAJO REDI-WIDE.18'WITHOUT PINS INo Subs. IS k ,$ S:.�C-H 263 1 1 i BACKBOARD.NAJO REDIHOLD,16'WITH PINS I No Subs. $ C S 1 k T,0 9�14 G H 264 t 'BACKYARD,NA 10 P,MIHOLD.16 WTHOUT PINS No Subs. !S \ ,p,0015 I 10 DD L�.c�CH 265 t 1 AACKBOARD,NAJO REDIBOARD,16'WrrH PINS No Subs. i5 \1 0,0 013 1 10,00 OACh 266 1 (BACKBOARD,NAJO REDIBOARD,16'WrrHOUT PINS INo Subs. IS S 1 V FL1 CH 267 1 !BACKBOARD,BAK-PAK,WITH PINS I No Subs. IS I-'�9,0 5:$1,3 1,6 ett-lC-H 268 -1- BACKBOARD,BAR-PAR,WITHOUT PINS No Subs. IS $ 1 d 1 >;A C_►-1 269 1 1 1 BACKBOARD,ALLIED HOX-WITH PINS No Subs. $ cl5.r.Dl$ r--A C- { 270 1 t 1 BACKBOARD,ALLIED HDX,WITHOUT PINS No Subs. $ IR 1,0,5 S 5-:AC h 271 I 1 BACKBOARD,LSP MILLER BODY SPLINT No Subs. S $ EACH 272 1 1 1 STRAPS,FERNO FASTRAP No Subs. $ B'q S UGH 273 1 1 1 STRAPS,IRON DUCK BOARDLOC 3000 No Subs. $ 5 9.-a D S 044(�. 274 1 STRAPS,2'NYLON,2 PIECE,S,QUICK CLIP.AUTO.T No Subs, S q,9 S 9195 5A C H Brand Offered 00N G1C No Subs. S S I SECTION Vlll TOTAL 5 S I Personal and Protective E ui ment 275 1 1 GLOVES,N-DEX,NITRILE.BOX 50,ALL SIZES , d 0 CS-201,OX5 272 I 1 GLOVES,MICROFLEX.SYNETRON.BOX 50,ALL SIZES No Subs. $ .3 O S CS'I D/t3X5 277 I 1 GLOVES,MICROFLEX ULTRA ONE,BOX 50.ALL SIZE No Subs. S re,`i S 'i. C5'1 C/(jX$ NAME OF UFFEHUR: V` 1 +' C'/ Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA Page 8 Substitutes Est. and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case 278 1 GLOVES,MICROFLEX,SAFEGRIP,BOX 50,ALL SIZE INo Subs. $ C.9 r, $ 9(eG C S-1 0/sx5 279 1 IGLOVES, MICROFLEX,DIAMOND GRIP,BOX 100,ALL No Subs. $ S o $-10 3X5 280 1 1 IGLOVES, MICROFLEX,EVOLUTION ONE,BOX 100.A INo Subs. $ 281 1 1 1 GLOVES, MICROFLEX,MICRO ONE,BOX 100,ALL SIZI No Subs. $ $ 0 0 -1 U/3X_5 282 1 1 GLOVE BUTLER,STAINLESS I No Subs. 25.Z $ - EA CH��S.a? Brand Offered W l`f1 Anj $ $ 283 1 GLOVE BUTLER, ENAMEL PAINTED I r-1 q S 1'1 V�GF-1 Brand Offered &O W ti $ 1$ 284 1 1 DISPENSA-GLOVE HOLDER q,'i r. E=—A CH 2851 1 IGLOVE HOLSTER,COROURA NYLON,4"X 5" No Subs. $ 3,S+i $ 3.3N E AC-H Brand Offered is $ 286 1 GLOVE HOLSTER,CMC,4"X 5" 3.90 3.90 >✓A GI t 287 1 1 1 POCKET MASK,LAERDAL,WITH VALVE AND CASE I No Subs. $ 10, $ &X/I D 288 1 1POCKET MASK,AMBU RES-CUE,WITH CASE No Subs. 1$ q - j$ 9 C- 3L 6X/r O 2891 77POCKET MASK,MDI, CPR MICROMASK No Subs. $ 1$ s.r/rG 290 ! 1 PPOCKET MASK.SEALEASY FACEMASK !No Subs. $ I$ -P 5X/IV 291 I 1 1 FILTER MASK,3M N95,ALL SIZES I No Subs. Is I I$ a ,2.�/-vC 292 1 1 PPROCEDURE MASK, FLUIDSHIELD WITH VISOR I No Subs. 1$ I$ T'0'00 GS/Ica 293 i 1 1RED-Z FLUID CONTROL POWDER INo Subs. $ 36, 1$ (, Gs j Icc 294 1 1 1 HAND CLEANER,DERMA STAT WATERLESS FOAM No Subs. $ 1$ -C G5/I of 2951 1 IHAND WIPES,VIONEX, BOX 50 No Subs. $ 6, 1 r7 Is CC cs-I GlBx5 296 1 IHAND WIPES,SANI-OEX,TUB OF 135 1 No Subs. $ " is 6,2.H0 CS-1.3.1 297 I 1 IHAND WIPES,SANI-DEX,INDIVIDUAL PACKETTES, B INo Subs. IS C 1$ C C5-i C/gXS-+ec 2981 1 1 HAND GEL,JOHNSON&JOHNSON,PREVACARE, No Subs. $ 11'K I No Subs. $ 1$ (SECTION IX TOTAL S'$ t� First Aid Supplies 299 1 PREP PADS,KENDALL,ALCOHOL PREPS,BOX 200 1 1 1,CS ; 4 _?7 . � C C.Er� 300 1 IGLUTOSE GEL,15GM TUBE INo Subs. Is 2,401s 'w ax-i o 301 1 1 INSTA-GLUCOSE GEL, 15GM TUBE I No Subs. IS 2 qc ;$ 24,UJ 3x-f 302 1 1 IIPECAC SYRUP, 1 OZ BOTTLE No Subs. 1$ S . .37 eAi;k Brand Offered Ar,�oM1 $ $ 303 1 1 (ACTIVATED CHARCOAL,ACTIDOSE-AQUA FLEXITUBE,15GM .27 4,27 CAC 304 I 1 1EYE WASH,4 OZ I No Subs. $ 1, 50 I$ Cf) dx-ic I I Brand Offered H 14 k j $ $ 305 1 1 EYE WASH,8 OZ $ 1,rs 7 1$ ' Y.?? T?i '214 i !Brand Offered A rC'YnFI? is !$ _ 306 1 1 1 EYE PADS,J&J,LARGE, BOX 50 1 $,, v i T_4U bs 307 1 1 iICE PACK,KWIK KOLD, REGULAR,6 1/4"X 9" INo Subs. $ I$ i 2.113 308 1 !ICE PACK,KWIK KOLD,JUNIOR,5"X 7 1/2" 1 No Subs. $ ' 1$ 309 1 1ICE PACK- COLD. UNIT SIZED. BOXED,5"X 5 1/No Subs. is 1$ - ;� r=-n'G 310 ! 1 (WARM PACK,AIR ACTIVATED INo Subs. 1$ 'L,Z 1 1$ i 3,2'1 Bo •o Brand Offered C OAJi p A I $ $ 311 1 1HEAT PACK,KWIK HEAT.6"X 9" 1 312 1 1 BURN SHEET,STERILE, DISPOSABLE,60"X 96" 1No Subs. 1$ �3 1$ 5 •C4'r Z 313 1 BAND-AID,J &J,SHEER STRIP,718"SPOTS, BOX 1001No Subs. b 4.2` IS f 4_ 3.cklCS .3L'e. 3141 1 ;BAND-AID,J&J,SHEER STRIPS,3/8"X 1 12"JR,BO INo Subs. 1$ 2.35 IS cs--3cr bk j 315 i 1 I BAND-AID,J&J,SHEER STRIPS,3/4"X 3", BOX 100 No Subs. $ 2.qcf 1$ 3: -5- /a AK5 3161 1 ,BAND-AID,J&J,SHEER STRIPS, 1"X 3", BOX 100 No Subs. $ 3,15 $ .• •7,S0 Cb 'r3005 3171 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,PLASTIC STRIPS,2"X 4 12",EX-L,B No Subs. Is $I 07,42 c5-IS&5 318 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,FLEXIBLE FABRIC,3/4"X 3",BOX 10 INo Subs. $ '3'.3 fr 1$ 0. L'S•is�%+5 319 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,FLEXIBLE FABRIC, 1"X 3", BOX 100 INoSubs. IS r $ 41,SO cs- rz i3e S 320 1 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,FLEXIBLE FABRIC, FINGER TIP,BOXI No Subs. Is 3 IS 321 1 BAND-AID,J &J,FLEXIBLE FABRIC, KNUCKLE,BOX 1 No Subs. $ 57 f.140,cs- 13 P,tS 322 1 BAND-AID,J&J.CHILDRENS,3/4"X 3-, BOX 100 1 No Subs. $ $ ±0. Z CS•/2 Gv5 323 1 KENDALL CURAD CHILDRENS BANDAGES,ASST SIZI No Subs. $ 1.f'Z Is .F3 CS a4 0w s 324 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,BUTTERFLY CLOSURES,MEDIUM, 81 No Subs. $ ,Sr0 $ 0,k, CS-r 2 Fr e S 325 1 1 BAND-AID,J&J,BUTTERFLY CLOSURES,LARGE,BO No Subs. $ $ 0. CS��1Rr5 I � NAME OF OFFEROR: V1 �� f V �/. Bid No. IT11650-FLA ' Page 9 Substitutes _ Est. and Appr. Pm Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit I I 326 1 TTRIANGULAR BANDAGE,J&J,NON STERILE,W/PINS $ ,� $ C� 1C%j Brand Offered,) 5 J 327 1 1 ITRIANGULAR BANDAGE,ECONOMY, NON STERILE No Subs. is AL 1$ S,04 mzE� I W/PINS 1 328 1 1 1 COBAN WRAP,2 X 5 YARDS No Subs. is 1. . 1$ 47.sG 8t-3(0 3291 1 1 C0BAN WRAP,3"X 5 YARDS No Subs. $ Z.Z4 $ 3.7 &-Z4 330 1 ICOBAN WRAP,4"X 5 YARDS I No Subs. $ 2.17js y8•,9 Bf-i8 331 1 ISOF-KLING,J &J, 1"NON STERILE No Subs. $ 21 1$ 20,1 C5•11(, 332 1 1 1 SOF-KLING,J&J,2"NON STERILE I No Subs. $ ZIA 2 111 CS-9(, 333 1 1 SOF-KLING,J&J.3"NON STERILE I No Subs. Is 33 i5 1.109 CS-9(0 334 1 1 SOF-KLING,J&J,4"NON STERILE INo Subs. $ ,'4 6 IS b•C8 CS-1 t, 335 1 1 1SOF-KLING,J&J,6"NON STERILE INo Subs. S rc I 15 3g,sq, CS-48 336 ( 1 1 SOF-KLING,J&J.2-STERILE No Subs. is is 51.94 C5.9(, 337 I 1 1 SOF-KLING,J&J.3"STERILE No Subs. IS .L.Z iS CS-7L 338 1 ISOF-KLING,J &J,4"STERILE No Subs. is 74 1S 53• s�CS-72 3391 1 ;SOF-KLI1,lG,J&J,6"STERILE !No Subs. 15 IS ,06 05-141 340 1 KLING FLUFF ROLL,J&J, STERILE No Subs­Subi­j$ If I$ qT,00 C5-too 3417 1 1 KLING FLUFF ROLL,J&J, NON STERILE No Subs. 10 1$ 1 to.ov c5-/co 342 1 1 FLEXICON GAUZE BANDAGE,CONCO,3"STERILE I No Subs. ;$ ,5► S 9.'I oi- 1 L 343 1 IKERLIX GAUZE BANDAGE,KENDALL,4.5",STERILE No Subs. 1$ 1, t; IS I ` es-IC3 344 1 IKERLIX GAUZE BANDAGE,KENDALL,3.4",STERILE No Subs. I$ is sS•Nu CS -�1(c 3451 1 SOF-BAND BULKY BANDAGE,J&J,4"STERILE I No Subs. is j, (o i$ 1wl & C 5 346 1 1 I NU-GAUZE SPONGES,J&J,2'X 2",N/S t!� /Zo0 INo Subs. $ 5,51S 36,!?z cs-5a'o 347 1 1 NU-GAUZE SPONGES,J&J,3"X 3", N/S Z,- INo Subs. 1$ 3,Tz 15 17b.38 Cs-c{cc0 348 1 1 NU-GAUZE SPONGES,J&J.4"X 4", N/S 0iQ INo Subs. 1$ $ 917.jj cs• fcco 349 1 1 NU-GAUZE SPONGES,J&J,2"X 2,STERILE 9v No Subs. 1$ ,a S G.3 a- t5co 350 1 1 1 NU-GAUZE SPONGES,J &J,3"X 3",STERILE t3)1 ZS I No Subs. $ 1• 1$ 2.104 cs-I zoo 351 1 1 INU-GAUZE SPONGES,J &J,4"X 4",STERILE gY -% No Subs. 1$ 7.5 S +0. CS-(.00 352 1 1 ITOPPER SPONGES,J&J,4"X4",STERILE.#2436 1 No Subs. IS CL- $ 171.95 [s-)aco 353 1 ISURGIPAD COMBINE DRESSING,J&J.8"X 7 12" I No Subs. Is , ZL- IS C5-;3,� 354 1 1SURGIPAD COMBINE DRESSING,J&J,5"X 9" 1No Subs. 1$ i$ 56,Cc cs-4cO 355 1 ISURGIPAD COMBINE DRESSING,J&J,8"X 10" INo Subs. 1$ IS .10 C6'32o 356 1 1 ,ADAPTIC DRESSING,J &J,3"X 3" 1 No Subs. i$ IS 2 3.5C 6x-5F- 357 I 1 IADAPTIC DRESSING,J&J,3"X 8" I No Subs. 1$ ILL 1$ ? 8),-214 358 1 1 PETROLATUM GAUZE,3"X 18" INo Subs. is IS /o. 2 359 1 1 !PETROLATUM GAUZE,5"X 9" INo Subs. IS S 5 [Sx sZ� 360 1 !PETROLATUM GAUZE,3"X 9" ;No Subs. 1$ ,gZIS Sy 1g,c- tz- 361 1 1 NAPE,3M TRANSPORE, 1/2"X 10 YD INo Subs. 1$ 2 IS l 48,.9,0 GS-L'{-o 362 1 1 (TAPE,3M TRANSPORE, 1"X 10 YD !No Subs. I$ 1,zq IS N$,so C5- 1 Zc 363 1 1 (TAPE,3M TRANSPORE,2 X 10 YD I No Subs. $ 2.N7l$ lqg. , C5- L-C 364 1 !TAPE, KENDALL,WET-PRUF WATERPROOF, 1"X 10 No Subs. 1$ 7,/(,!. IS 311.o CS-14q 365 ! 1 !TAPE. KENDALL.WET-PRUFWATERPROOF.2"X 10 No Subs. !S t4-33 S 11.?(a CS- -72- 366 ! 1 ;TAPE,J &J,WATERPROOF, 1"X 10 YD iNo Subs. S ,$ 15 TZJ C7-I4y 367 1 1 NAPE,J&J,WATERPROOF,2"X 10 YD I No Subs. is 5,7c7iS ?2."CIS-7'L 368 i 1 TAPE,J &J,ZONAS, 112"X 10 YD 1 No Subs. I to 369 1 1 ,TAPE,J &J,ZONAS, 1"X 10 YD No Subs. I$ IS f T%4 CS-1 t`f 370 1 1 TAPE,J &J,ZONAS, 1 12"X 10 YD No Subs. I$ 1• zq I5 fz3.qq Cg-9& 371 1 ITAPE,J&J,ZONAS,2"X 10 YD INo Subs. 1$ 1,7 Z IS 123.Y14 6s-7L 372 1 TAPE,J&J,ZONAS,3"X 10 YD I No Subs. $ .2 S .3 CS-y8 373 1 1 TAPE,J&J, DERMICEL,12"X 10 YD INo Subs. Is 45 IS 1£ ,100 C5-Zgg 374 1 1 TAPE,J &J,DERMICEL, 1"X 10 YD INo Subs. 1$ ,-7 I$ /C6.5;(1 es.t yN 375 ' 1 TAPE.J &J,DERMICEL,2 X 10 YD No Subs. 1$ 1.41 IS 107,ZS C5-_72 3761 1 TAPE,J &J,DERMICEL,3"X 10 YD No Subs. $ 2. Z S o. i ^5- yq 377 1 TAPE,WHITE DUCT TAPE,2 X 60 YARDS No Subs. IS y S 1511,90 c5-V4 Brand Offered tL} $ 1$ 378 1 ITAPE,J&J,DERMIFORM KNITTED, 1"X 10 YD I qqI / 2,5LC 5-I4 U 379 1 1 ITAPE,J&J,DERMIFORM KNITTED,2 X 10 YD 7No Subs. $ 9'1 IS 141 I' C6--7 L 380 1 1 1ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED, 10.0 No Subs. Is 1, q 1 1$ f gr-10 Brand Offered 3�N I is I S 1v r �.jrrcnvrti:_ 1 . 1 K l/i 1701)7-1110 Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA • Page 10 Substitutes i Est. and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS !TENS Equals Price per Unit Case I 381 1 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,5.0 Brand Offered U-56 W S S !O 7)( t 382 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,5.5 Brand Offered t $ 1,4 1 $ 383 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,6.0 Brand Offered ZUSCP4 S IS I .I l� 384 I 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,6.5 Brand Offered U H S 1$ 4.I ) 3851 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,7.0 I Brand Offered Wtj 5Llf S Ilql IS ( .1 386 1 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,7.5 I I Brand Offered kLOC k is ,Li 1$ 14.J 387 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,8.0 i 1 i Brand Offered ;S f IS I4 10 338 1 IENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,8.5 I 1 i 1 Brand Offered U S f,41 1$ It4,10 389 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,CUFFED,9.0 I I Brand Offered L a 1.4 I IS T4.10 3901 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,2.0 1 1 I Brand Offered Ll is E zz is z 391 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,2.5 I I I Brand Offered l( Is 27 1$ 0 392 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,3.0 Brand Offered 1 IS 1,22 IS I ,ZO 393 1 IENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,3.5 I I Brand Offered IS 1,M If 394 1 JENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,4.0 1 1 (Brand Offered KU5LH 1 1S !S12.2D 395 i 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,4.5 I I Brand Offered LC 5 is I 396 1 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,5.0 I I Brand Offered is IS 397 1 1 1 ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE, UNCUFFED,5.5 1 1 Brand Offered IS IS rz. 0 398 1 1 1ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE,UNCUFFED,6.0 i ' Brand Offered l I IS $ 0 3991 1 !ENDOTRACHEAL TUBE, UNCUFFED,6.5 I I (Brand Offered KUSLA i IS IS 0 400 1 1SLICK SET, POLAMEDCO,CUFFED,5.0 1 ! 401 1 ISLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, CUFFED, 5.5 INo Subs. 15 Is aJ 402 ! 1 'SLICK S=?,PCLnh1EDC0, GL77=D,6.0 Nc Subs. S S _ 403 ! 1 !SLICK SET, POLAMEDCO,CUFFED,6.5 INo Subs. Li Z L4 IS .4c) 404 1 1SLICK SET,POLAMEDCO, CUFFED,7.0 INo Subs. IS iS 405 1 1 I SLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, CUFFED,7.5 No Subs. IS q.S L4S U 406 1 1 ISLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, CUFFED,8.0 INo Subs. j5 S 407 1 1 ISLICK SET, POLAMEDCO,CUFFED,8.5 1 No Subs. iS H.lzLl S .LkD 408 1 1 ISLICK SET, POLAMEDCO,CUFFED,9.0 No Subs. IS S '•1 409 1 1 ISLICK SET,POLAMEDCO, UNCUFFED,2.0 1 No Subs. is I$ 47.4o 410 1 1 ISLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, UNCUFFED,2.5 No Subs. 1$ N $ 57.40 411 1 1 ISLICK SET,POLAMEDCO, UNCUFFED,3.0 No Subs. JS Is S a 4121 .1 SLICK SET,POLAMEDCO,UNCUFFED,3.5 No Subs. IS 7 $ .qv' 4131 1 1 SLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, UNCUFFED,4.0 No Subs. 1$ $ 37 qO 4141 1 ISLICK SET,POLAMEDCO,UNCUFFED,4.5 No Subs. IS $ 415 1 SLICK SET, POLAMEDCO, UNCUFFED,5.0 No Subs. IS iS 37-140 4161 1 1 ET TUBE HOLDER,THOMAS,ADULT No Subs. S 2 t2j$ fbg,00 CS-1 DO 4171 1 JET TUBE HOLDER,THOMAS, PEDIATRIC No Subs. IS $ 8 CS- ICO 4181 1 ISTYLETTE, FLEXETTE COMPACT, 12FR INo Subs. 1S 3 t3�C-ZS No Subs. is IS t NAME OF OFFEROR: L/ V �� (� Bid No. IT11'350-E.LA Page 11 Substitutes Est. I and Appr. I I Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals ( Price per Unit Case 419 1 ISTYLETTE.FLEXETTE,10FR I,7 /51/-25 420 1 1 1 STYLETTE,FLEXETTE,6FR 61-21; 421 1 1 1SMETTE,SLICK ADULT,10FR No Subs. IS $5 " OX.2S 422 1 ISTYLETTE,SLICK MIOLETTE,8FR No Subs. is S 2 ay •25 423 1 STYLETTE,SLICKPEDILETTE,6FR No Subs. IS_ IS 2 mac,_? 424 1 1 CO2 DETECTOR,EASY CAP,ADULT No Subs. $ O $ a)(-(p 425 1 CO2 DETECTOR,PEDI CAP,PEDIATRIC I No Subs. S 426 1 TUBECHEK-B,AMBU,BULB STYLE No Subs. 15 5.19 S L 67e,CS-Z0 427 1 ITUBECHEK AMBU,SYRINGE STYLE I No Subs. $ IS CS-Zl� 428 I 1 1 MAGILL FORCEP,ADULT No Subs. 13 S gAC w 429 1 1 MAGILL FORCEP,CHILD No Subs. 1$ S D eZ1Gh4 430 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MACINTOSH#1 INo Subs. IS S 151-&4 QFCI+ 431 1 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MACINTOSH 92 1 No Subs. IS ,0a IS XV,DO 432 1 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPIFE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MACINTOSH#3 1 No Subs. IS _151.0 q IS CW 433 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MACINTOSH#4 1 No Subs. IS 4Zj-Ct4 S GJ L)14 434 1 1 1LARY14GOSCOPE BLADE.FISEROPTIC,MILLER.90 No Subs. IS IS 435 1 1 I LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE.FIBEROPTIC,MILLER#1 No Subs. is S 1.l} 436 I 1 1LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MILLER 92 No Subs. IS IS. ►- 437 I 1 1LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MILLER#3 1 No Subs. IS ,cL4Sli 438 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,FIBEROPTIC,MILLER 04 No Subs. IS pt S D 439 1 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE R£PL.BULB,FIBEROPTIC No Subs. 13 S 2 0 6)t-Co 440 , 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MACINTOSH#2 1 No Subs. Is I S /, f�>V-1 O 441 1 1 1LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MACINTOSH#3 No Subs. S 13 (�(-ID 442 1 1 1LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MACINTOSH#4 No Subs. IS S .'�..10 443 1 I LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MILLER#O No Subs. is 1 I S 1. a(,1O 444 1 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE.LITE BLADE,MILLER#1 No Subs. 1$ S q1 P(_I J 445 1 t 1 LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MILLER#2 No Subs. IS q,13 IS / f3g-I cD 446 1 1 I LARYNGOSCOPE BLADE,LITE BLADE,MILLER 93 No Subs. IS 44.13 13 447 I 1 I LARYNGOSCOPE BULB,LARGE STANDARD TYPE I No Subs. ;S 13 I Brand Offered No Subs. I$ S tqlo ex-(a 448 1 1 LLARYNGOSCOPE BULB,SMALL IS S i Brand Offered 449 1 1 LARYNGOSCOPE HANDLE,SMALL Is a 10 S ' '0 ( Brand Offered 450 1 1 iLARYNGOSCOPE HANDLE,MEDIUM IS 10 Is )Z 10 e:NGIT 1 I Brand Offered ! 451 1 ASPIRATOR,MECONIUM S 3 t5l.ucCsn`�a 452 1 1ARGYLE SUMP TUBE.12 FR. I Z,515 i I Zq,X C16LC"J 453 1 ARGYLE SUMP TUBE,14 FR. INo Subs. $ '1, S a) 1j�"ITO Csl 454 1 ARGYLE SUMP TUBE,16 FR. INo Subs. 3 IS QT vv l 455 1 1ARGYLE SUMP TUBE,18 FR. No Subs. $ S v I No Subs. 13 IS IS ECTION X No Subs. I S Diagnostic Equipment I iTOTAL 2aW3 3 9 J53,C 456 1 1 j LANCET,M-TAINER,HIGH,BOX OF 50 1 457 1 1 1 LANCET,M-TAINER,LOW,BOX OF 50 J 6,1.50 458 1 1 1PRECSSION O-I-D SYSTEM No Subs. IS 0 S eAGH 459 ! 1 iPRECISION 04-0 TEST STRIP,BOX OF 100 1 No Subs. Is 5 S •20 & /0 0 460 ! 1 1THERMOMETER,WELCH ALLYN.TYMPANIC 9020 No Subs. iS $Z k'; QIG1-I 461 j 1 iTHERMOMETER,THERMOSCAN,TYMPANIC PRO-LT No Subs. 1$ /U O S /0 &'4GI—f 462 1 !THERMOMETER,THERMOSCAN,TYMPANIC PRO-1 No Subs. is 2 S �?G!-{ No Subs. S S SECTION XI No Subs. S IS I.V.Equipment And Supplies TOTAL S 463 1 I1.V.AD SET,KAWASUMI,10 DROP.72',FLASHBACK,REG I 1 Q CS-50 464 1 1 I.V.AD SET,KAWASUMI,10 DROP,72`,1 INJ.SITE I No Subs. IS ,q q 13 s- 465 I 1 II.V.AD SET,KAWASUMI,MICR,ORP,60 OR,72',1 INJ.Sl No Subs. 1$ f. 0 S Cs• GZo 466 I 1 1 I.V.AD SET,KAWASUMI,10 DROP.96-,2 Y INJ.SITES lNoSubs. S 1:14 Is 467 1 1 LV.AD SET,BARTER,MACROORIP,10 DROP,70',FtAS No Subs. S / 13 5 , CS-L!lb 468 1 ILV.AD SET,BARTER,MICROORIP,60 DROP,70-,FLASH No Subs. 1$ 1 1S 4.20 CS-y$ 469 i 1 I.V.AD SET,BARTER.MAC.ORP,10 OR,70',1 INJ.SITE I No Subs. 1 iVAlvlt ur UrrtnQm., t i 1 r rj 1'-4 A Diu IVO. I I I 1 COU-tLA Page 12 I 1 Substitutes Est. and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case 470 1 1 1 I.V.AD SET,BAXTER,MIC.DRP,60 DR,70-, 1 Y INJ. No Subs. S aZO C5-4 S SITES 471 1 1 I.V.AD SET,BAXTER,MAC.DRP, 10 OR,85",2 Y INJ. No Subs. S IS CS y SITES 472 1 U.V.AD SET,BAXTER,MIC.DRP,60 DR,85",2 Y INJ. INo Subs. $ ,37 I S I l .1 CS'4 lb SITES I 473 1 1 LV.AD SET, BURETROL, 150ML MIX CHAMB,60 DR, INo Subs. S q.-77- IS 22 CS-4� 12 Y INJ. 1 1 474 1 1 I I.V.AD SET,Y-TYPE BLOOD SET, 10 DROP, 1 Y INJ. INo Subs. $ L4. 3 Ll $ 0 CS-ya 1 SITE I II 475 1 1 1 I.V.AD SET,MCGAW, 15 DRCP,94", 1 Y INJ.SITE I No Subs. is IS /.Oc' CS-SU 1 1 I.V.CATHETER,J&J.PROTECTIV,ALL GUAGES&LENGINo Subs. IS 1.7 IS 37Z.OCCS 2Cc 1 I I i 477 1 11.V.CATHETER,J&J,PROTECTIV PLUS,ALL GAJ No Subs. ;S 1. 17S 39y.C, C S z I LENGTHS i I 478 1 1 1 W.CATHETER, BECTON DICKINSON, INSYTE,ALL GA/ INo Subs. 1$ k C IS 2 •C CS—ZOO I JLGTH 1 I 479 1 1 LV.CATHETER, B/O,INSYTE AUTOGUARD,ALL GA I INo Subs. IS 9.21 IS qq Cc. 1 LENGTH I ! I 480 1 1 I I.V.CATHETER, B/0,ANGIOCATH, 10& 12 GUAGE INo Subs. is 1-l. IS lq .5b t- 481 1 I.V.CATHETER, B/D,ANGIOCATH,14-20 GUAGE INo Subs. Is /, is '2.mo C5-ZCO 482 1 1 1LV.CATHETER,B/0,ANGIOCATH,22&24 GUAGE INo Subs. IS f, is S-30,0 CS-Zoe 483 1 I.V.CATHETER,J&J,JELCO, 14-20 GUAGE INo Subs. IS 1. C3 IS Ztx,.0- C&-ZC D 484 ! 1 I.V.CATHETER,J&J,JELCO,22 GUAGE INo Subs. IS 6 I$ (q4.CJ C5. 2C� 485 1 1 11.V.CATHETER,J&J,JELCO.24 GUAGE !No Subs. IS 1, 31 IS is Ox C5-ZO.� _ 486 1 1I.V.CATHETER,J&J,OPTIVA, 14-20 GUAGE I No Subs. is /, / 1$ 22nx G 5-ZOO 487 1 II.V.CATHETER,J&J,OPTIVA,22 GUAGE INo Subs. 5 1 CS- 2.ct-7 488 1 1 I.V. CATHETER,J&J,OPTIVA,24 GUAGE 1No Subs. Is IS 00- •0 C 5-ZOJ 489 ! 1 I.V.ARM BOARD.9",PADDED INo Subs. IS IS 0 CS-IOC 490 1 ;LV.ARM BOARD, 18", PADDED !No Subs. IS 7r,iS CS- 100 491 1 II.V. DRESSING,J&J,SIOCLUSIVE INo Subs. IS 321E Z'. � CS•4 7o 492 ! 1 II.V. DRESSING,CON-MED,VENI-GARO 6 - /cam INo Subs. IS 54 lo IS 27Z,L" 0:5_Sgx 493 1 1I.V. DRESSING,3M,TEGAOERM INo Subs. IS IS ;,clj f3,• I Cc-- 494 1 I.V.TOURNIQUETS, FLAT LATEX - 7" !No Subs. IS 3G.o IS 36,.v&/ F3 zSll 495 1 I.V.TOURNIQUETS,PENROSE TUBING I No Subs. !S ;S /4./2 /3x-Zc-4 496 1 !I.V. SOLUTION,TRAVENOL,0.9 SODIUM.25000 BAG !No Subs. IS . 30 i5 4--8 497 1 11.V. SOLUTION,TRAVENCL,0.9 SODIUM,50OCC BAG INo Subs. IS . 701S 34 a Cl)-zq 498 1 W. SOLUTION,TRAVENOL, LAC.RINGERS,250CC BAG 'No Subs. IS 5b IS C,O 7 C -3L. 499 1 I.V. SOLUTION,TRAVENOL, LAC. RINGERS,50OCC BAG ,No Subs. IS 2 IS 5C.C� C5-ZH 500 1 I.V. SOULTION,TRAVENOL, LAC.RINGERS, 1000CC BAG;No Subs. is Z.5p IS 3C.Ct'7 C5-1 Z 501 1 :I.V. SOLUTION.TRAVENOL,5%DEXTROSE,250CC BAG ;No Subs. ;S �,`�S;S `)`LOCC5-36 502 1 !I.V. SOLUTION,TRAVENOL,5%DEXTROSE,50OCC BAG INo Subs. IS 7 •' !S 1C5-DH 503 1 ;I.V. SOLUTION,TRAVENOL,5%DEXTROSE, 100000 BAGINo Subs. IS 757 I S.9 Cc C5-1--�A 504 ! 1 !I.V. PRESSURE INFUSER,INFU-SURG DISPOSABLE INo Subs. IS ci ' IS 1'-1,-75 OA r-H 505 ! 1 ;I.V. PRESSURE INFUSER, K-CUFF, 1000ML INo Subs. IS ,9C IS V,q C r;HHGH 506 1 1 LV.NEEDLES, 18-25 GUAGE,ALL LENGTHS INo Subs. IS 9 IS q,ec BX-icc,, 507 1 I SYRINGE, 1 CC,T.B.SYRINGE W/25 GA X SiF NEEDLE No Subs. S i5 gX-ICU 508 1 1SYRINGE,1OCC,LUER LOCK INo Subs. IS I S I t GX-100 509 I 1 SYRINGE, tOCC,LUER SLIP INo Subs. S I IS 1 Z &<-10C 510 1 SYRINGE,3CC,LUER LOCK No Subs. IS . 10 IS10,00 WC71 00 511 1 ISYRINGE,30CC,LUER LOCK INo Subs. Is 5 r,, S 0 0 3 X-SO 512 1 1 .SYRINGE,30CC LUER SLIP iNo Subs. IS 5<1501). Ox-5C 513 1 1 IVACUTAINER, LUER ADAPTERS INo Subs. is IS 0 0 3X-10C 514 ; 1 IVACUTAINER, BLOOD TUBE,LAVENDER,5ML,BX/100 I No Subs. IS .00 IS 1q,00 1-4X-100 5151 1 IVACUTAINER, BLOOD TUBE,LAVENDER, 10ML BX1100 INo Subs. IS .-2-Ai3 4,I GX-100 516 1 1 IVACUTAINER, BLOOD TUBE, RED,5ML, BX/100 INo Subs. IS I z3o IS 90 /3)(-100 517 1 1ORUG LOCK, RED,BX1100 I No Subs. Is IS 149,60. C-5- Ipf 6-0 518 1 1 1PEEP VALVE,AMBU DISPOSABLE,30MM INo Subs. is 0 S ri O p�aCH NAME OF OFFEROR: �J� , �/ Bid No. IT1 1 G50-ELA Page 13 uos i u es Est. and Appr. Price per Quantity BLS ITEMS Equals Price per Unit Case . I I 519 j 1 !PEEP VALVE,AMBU DISPOSABLE,22MM No Subs. IS S IS 5r9CH 520 t ICO2 DETECTOR, EASY CAP No Subs. IS R,f7Q S 0 Cs-G 521 , 1 1CO2 DETECTOR, PEDI CAP No Subs. $ IS C5-0 No Subs. IS IS ISECTION XII No Subs. S 35z L6 ISL 0 C 5 First Aid Supplies I ITOTAL IS 522 1 1 1 PREP PADS,PVP,BOX 100 13 it go C.5 iD�BX 5 523 1 PREP PADS,BENZALKONIUM CHLORIDE,BOX 100 i I ; CS-10f 8x5 No Subs. IS IS 5,m.iC II I INo Subs. IS i5 GRAND TOTAL ALL SECTIONS ITOTAL IS I IS NAME-OF OFFEROR: V l . �V Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA Page 14 CONTRACT EXTENSION contract period may be extended in.one-year increments for two years, in accordance with the Lounty's best interest and at the sole option of the County. The prices shall remain firm for at least sixty (60) days after the bid award. Thereafter, prices may be changed as follows: All price reductions at the manufacturer's or distributor's level shall be reflected in a reduction of the contract price(s) to King County retroactive to the effective date of the price change. In the event of a price increase at the manufacturer's level during the contract period the vendor may request a price change not to exceed the exact amount of the manufacturer's price increase. The request shall include adequate documentation and/or a copy of their suppliers price change notice. The contractor shall endeavor to give the King County Procurement Services thirty (30) days, but not less than fourteen (14) days written notice prior to the effective date of the price increase. The County may cancel the contract if the price increase request is not approved. QUALIFICATIONS: To be eligible for award all bidders shall have prior successful experience selling and delivering similar products and equipment to those listed in this bid. Samples may be required prior to bid award. List the names and addresses of four (4) previous clients for whom the bidder has performed similar se,wices including dates, contact persons, and telephones. Company Name 1 1(:_ 2. 5PtfT ,C0 , 14 Company Address 2203 BE LI I:tC I,'C; L, 30 C C-7C D C� Company Phone (-(CO77c 2��; (�I(�� L )ta Contact Person JA DI� KlNfV �� tG�, ��-�Do�� Dates �;L 1, _ (���1Ki 1_ CL. (12, Company Name 3. _.�YC�� �'kye, �( �� 4.J�1O�-�Vjt,"i I Fu vip& Company Address Company Phone C�� Contact Person 'j `'� r�J tG� �Atit (lil Dates buajaj T cI.t.e-t71�1T Should any references or samples submitted by a bidder be found unsatisfactory, King County, at its sole option, may reject that bidder's offer. King County shall be the sole judge in determining a satisfactory/ -ins 3factory reference response, or sample quality. ;ME OF OFFEROR: Bid No, iTI 155Q=EL A - Page 15 REQUIREMENTS Bidders Qualifications: , Bidders must be an established bona fide distributor of a full product line medical supplies and equipment in Washington State (although not necessarily based in Washington), with facilities, personnel and equipment necessary to perform all the requirements, terms and conditions of the invitation to Bid, in the event of award. If deemed to be in King County's best interest, this ITB may be awarded by section; therefore, to be eligible for award, bidders must bid all items in a section. If any items listed herein are found by the bidder to be unavailable and an approved equal cannot be obtained for substitution, bidder shall so state next to that item. Verification of unavailability status will be made by King County. If it is determined that item is available, bidder shall not be eligible for award of that section. It. Warranty: Items purchased under this contract shall be guaranteed against defect with full credit given. ill. Hours: A vendor representative shall be available for contact between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. (PST), Monday through Friday. Bidders shall state hours and days of operation: Hours: ,' tl' A.M. until 0 0 P.M. Days: \rl t L; through IV. Telephone Number: The vendor must have a telephone number that is toll free from all areas of King County, WA. V. Invoicing: The vender shall invoice separates F each King County agency, department or district ordering supplies. A list of the various King County agency, department or district locations will be provided to the Successful Bidder at the time the contract is awarded. This listing may not include all agencies. Vt. Delivery: The vendor shall provide delivery or shipping on the schedule specified in this section. Habitual late or non-compliance with delivery terms shall be grounds for contract termination. The vendor shall guarantee complete delivery of all orders within five (5) working days after placing order. On failure to furnish promptly any articles-specified in the contract, of the quality specified, the County reserves the right to purchase same in the open market, or declaring. such contract void, and if a greater price than the contract price has to be paid for any articles by purchasing it in the open market, the difference will be charged to the vendor. NAME-OF OFFEROR: I MCI,) Bid No. IT11650-ELA - .. Page 16 TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER REQUIREMENT: County requires that all awarded vendors have a Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue �,zrvice Form W-9 on file to accommodate payment. A copy is enclosed for your convenience. APPROXIMATE REQUIREMENTS: The quantities listed are the County's current approximate requirements. King County will neither be obligated by nor restricted to these quantities. S U SMITTA L: The original and one (1 ) copy of-this entire ITS document package shall be signed and submitted complete. Original s.hall 'be noted or stamped "original". Bidders shall use recycled paper in the preparation of documents submitted with this ITS and shall use both sides of paper sheets where practicable. FAILURE TO SUBMIT OFFER: If the recipient of this solicitation does not submit an offer for the goods or services requested, they shall return it and/or a written notice stating whether they wish to continue to receive future solicitations for the type of supplies or services specified. Failure to do so may result in removal of the recipient's name from the bidders' mailing list. NON-ASSIGNMENT Tne contractor may not assign any rights or delegate any duties under this contract without the County's prior written consent. Such consent must be in writing and received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment and/or delegation. King County is obligated to pay all applicable State and local sales or use taxes. All questions regarding this ITS shall be directed to the above named buyer. Any changes made to this ITS as a result of those questions will be issued via an addendum. INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENTS The contract between the awarded offerer and King County shall include all documents mutually entered into, specifically including the contract document, the ITS, and the Response to the ITS. The contract must include, and be consistent with, the specifications and provisions stated in this ITS. TERMINATION CLAUSES: A. Termination for Convenience The County for its convenience may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, at any time by written notice sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Successful awardee. After receipt of a Notice of Termination, and except as directed by the contract administrator, the Successful Awardee shall immediately stop work as directed in the Notice, and comply with all other requirements in the Notice. The Successful Awardee shall be paid its costs, including necessary and reasonable contract close-out costs and profit on that portion of the work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination as specified in the notice. The Successful NAME OF OFFEROR: , - �`�� J� I �� Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA Page 17 Awardee shall promptly submit its request for the termination payment, together with detailed supporting documentation. If the Successful Awardee-has any property in its possession belonging to the County, the Successful Awardee will account for the same and dispose of it in the manner the County directs. B. Termination for Default In addition to termination for convenience, if the Successful Awardee does not deliver supplies in accordance with the contract delivery schedule, or if the contract is for services and the Successful Awardee fails to perform in the manner called for in the contract, or if the Successful Awardee fails to comply with any other material provisions of the contract, the County may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, for default. Termination shall be effected by serving a . Notice of Termination by certified mail (return receipt requested) on the Successful Awardee setting forth the manner in which the Successful Awardee is in default and the effective date of termination; provided that the Successful Awardee shall have ten (10) calendar days to cure the default. The Successful Awardee will only be paid for goods delivered and accepted, or services performed in accordance with the manner of performance set forth in the contract less any damages to the County caused by such default. The termination of this contract shall in no way relieve the Successful Awardee from any of its obligations under this contract nor limit the rights and remedies of the County hereunder in any manner. C. Termination for Non-Appropriation This contract may be canceled at the end of the then current fiscal period for non-appropriation of funds by the King County Council. Such cancellation shall be upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Successful Awardee. King County's fiscal period ends December 31 of each year. If the contract is terminated as provided in this subsection: 1 . The County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this contract for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and 2. The Successful Awardee shall be released from any obligation to provide further services pursuant to the contract as are affected by the termination. Funding under this contract beyond the current appropriation is conditional upon the ippropriaticn by the County Council of sufficient funds to support the activities described in this contract. Should such an appropriation not be approved, the contract will terminate at the close of the current appropriation year. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS: The successful awardee shall protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the County, its agents, employees, officials, and officers harmless from, and shall process and defend at its own expense any and atl claims, demands, suits, penalties, losses, damages, or costs of any kind whatsoever (hereinafter "claims") brought against the County arising out of or incident to the execution of, performance of, or failure to perform this Contract; PROVIDED, however, that if such claims are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of the successful awardee, its agents, employees, and/or officers and the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers, this paragraph shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the successful awardee; its agents, employees, and/or officers; and, PROVIDED FURTHER, that nothing in this paragraph shall require the successful awardee to indemnify, hold harmless, or defend the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers from any claims caused by or resulting from the sole neoligence of the County, its agents, employees, and/or officers. The successful NAME OF UFFERUR: L/1 C tr,- I I l../ Bid No. IT1 1650-ELA Page 18 awardee's own employees or agents. For this purpose, the successful awardee, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the County only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against s—:h claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 R.C.W. In the event the County incurs , judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this paragraph, and such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the successful awardee. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION-MINORITY WOMEN BUSINESS: All bidders must respond to the questions on the attached instructions for Affirmative Action Compliance and Minority/Women Business Participation.. PROMPT PAYMENT DISCOUNTS King County's payment terms are Net 30 days after receipt and acceptance of invoice. If a prompt payment discount is offered by bidders, it will be used to calculate the low bid; provided that the discount offered allows a minimum term of 20 days for payment after receipt and acceptance of invoice. SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM: King County encourages the creation of supported employment programs for developmentally and/or severely disabled individuals. The County itself has such a program and is actively seeking to do business with those contractors and consultants which share this employment approach. If your firm has such a program, or intends to develop such a program during the life of this contract, please submit documentation supporting this claim with your bid/proposal/qualifications. If you have questions, or need additional information, please contact Delia Shaffer, King County ADA Coordinator, 296-7705 or Estes, Contract Compliance, 689-4591 . NAME OF OFFEROR: �1I�' `�J l� Bid No. IT1 1550=1�{.A Page•19 INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE AND MINORITY/WOMEN'S BUSINESS PARTICIPATION ON KING COUNTY CONTRACTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS KING COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 12.16 King County Code 1 2.1 6 relates to non-discrimination in employment and requires vendors to submit work force data to pre-qualify for purchase order or contract award. For a vendor/contractor to maintain a pre-qualified status, personnel employment data must be listed on the Personnel Inventory Report (PIR) when the amount of business placed with the firm will exceed $25,000 for the year. The code also requires submission of a notarized Affidavit and Certificate of Compliance when orders during any one year period are expected to amount to $25,000 or more. After the initial submission, a PIR must be updated and resubmitted once every two years. The affidavit remains valid as long as an updated PIR is submitted once every two years. In order to be eligible for award of this contract, bidders/proposers must have current compliance data on file with the King County Procurement & Contracts Services Division. If a Personnel Inventory Report form and/or an Affidavit of Compliance has been included as part of these specifications, the form(s) may be submitted with your bid/proposal. Please contact the King County Procurement & Contracts Services Division at (206) 296-4210 if you have questions regarding your firm's affirmative action compliance status. Is your firm in compliance with King County Affirmative Action requirements? Yes No ❑ Do you propose M/WB participation on this contract? Yes No ❑ Is your firm minority/woman owned? / Yes No ❑ COMPANY NAME �� ' ����, 1�j�i DATE 25 - tiz ^ SIGNATURE � Owner/Authorized Agent F �� y Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LAPTOP COMPUTERS PURCHASE - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the purchase of twenty laptop computers from Datec, Inc. to be used as Mobile Data Terminals (MDT' s) . The Kent Police Department requests approval to purchase twenty laptop computers from Datec, Inc. This request also includes two FDD cables for a floppy disk, as well as two CD Roms . This equipment will simplify programming and maintenance. Information Services was consulted to insure that all equipment is compatible with their needs. 3 . EXHIBITS: Datec, Inc . quote dated 5/21/99 and memo to Mayor White from Police Department 6/16/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 7/6/99 (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $91 , 936 . 63 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Councilmanic Bonds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D AO ?TAL T E D C Your Technology Solutions Provider HEADQUARTERS BRANCH OFFICE 364 Upland Drive,Seattle,Washington 98188 7927 S.W.Cirrus Drive, Beaverton,Oregon 97008 (206)575-1470 FAX(206)575-1475 (503)641-6644 FAX(503)641-6462 Friday, May 21, 1999 Steve Ohlde Kent Police Department 232 4th Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 Dear Steve: Here is the quote you requested on the CF-27 and PCMCIA Card. I included the Tacoma Contract/Award as well as some documentation on our involvement with Panasonic and Kodiak. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at 206-575-1470 or my pager at 206-648-3117. QTY ITEM PRICE EXTENDED Standard Features: 20 Panasonic CF-27 $3,950 $79,000 - Pentium 266MHz - 4 GB HHD - 32 MB Ram - 3.5" Floppy drive - 12.1 active color TFT - Win 95 20 3COM Combo 56k/14.4 PCMCIA S245.86 S4,91'.20 V.90 10/100BT EN ET 2 FDD Cable for Floppy $60 S120 Options Available: CF-27 CD ROM $309.50 Backlit Keyboard S285 Kodiak Docking Station $550 Kodiak Gooseneck keyboard Light $78 " Panasonic backlit keyboard will begin shipping in late July early August Sincerelly,,;�e ��- Jeff Martin DATEC INC. Serving the Northwest Since 1975 E-mail: datecddatecinc.net Visit our Websrte at www.datecinc.net i R P O R A T rE D�T Your Technology Solutions Provider HEADQUARTERS BRANCH OFFICE 364 Upland Drive,Seattle,Washington 98188 7927 S.W.Cirrus Drive,Beaverton,Oregon 97008 (206)575-1470 FAX(206)575-1475 (503)641-6644 FAX(503)641-6462 May 17, 1999 Steve Ohlde City of Kent Police Department Kent, WA 98 Dear Steve, Thank you for allowing Datec Inc the opportunity to quote the City of Kent Police Department the Panasonic CF27 laptop and requested accessories. Enclosed is a copy of the Law Enforcement Support Agency (LESA) contract/purchase order recently awarded to Datec Inc. This contract contains the CF27 laptop you are currently buying. Please see the enclosed equipment list you requested. Datec Inc will allow the City of Kent to purchase off the LESA contract pricing. We will provide The City of Kent product additions and pricing updates to the contract on a regular basis Datec Inc has been a technology soluticn provider since 1975. We have expanded our expertise in the Government !.aw Enforcement mobile arena as a preferred Panasonic 1113 autronze.i Sincerely, ILI David Almonte President Dates Inc Serving the Northwest Since 1975 E-mail: datecic�Odatecinc.net Visit our Website at www.datecrnc.net CITY OF T ACOMA PROPOSAL Ste==T Page 1 SPECIFICATION NO. C-014-99 T0: CITY CLERK ROOM 220, TACOM�. MUNICIPAL BUILOING T ACOMA, WASHINC T ON 98402-3763 TFC'Tr-4CAL 5=17CATIO`5' he followL^4 is a List of ae CiR''S new lamcm s well as rl c n-pe of sot are it woLd be :o ;=:. a.11 bids shill meet_tee S'O1 We, the undersigned, hereby agree to furnish the following F.C.B. 930 Taccra Ave S, Room Zia Lantoas ?art Number ! C=•271J43A j C:2?3.IT3 f I C=_7?J=Q -lyI CPT 266 j ?=ti,=266 1 °'=_:__66 16,6 Hard Drive ! ;G3 I s G3 G3 ! i R_ of =2`s i ='_ ,VfB I NO Disk Drive _.: I _S" _.� :._- 3: a ROm LCD Screen .. ==ve :Dior= i '' ? _c_ve :oi.o_- 12.1 aczve color Jerre color=, j Resolution 1300 x 600 1 800 x 600 1 300 x 600 ; 3007,600 Options -2 SZY124 64�;R�tiI SLtiLtii I - =zd: L-Zmde I Softwa.-e r S wi=C;ow3 " i �Li Cv?Zdows 3f lViS `^+irda';-S ?• `,t= -•V__ows 95 Price Per unit j I S401 0 . 00 i$4060 . 00 (to be provided ,y 195 OU 132mg instid 164 mg instid $2699 . 70 by vendor) I d - i d 0 9 c c I CDPD j ����c-�'a�'��rxic'sz-IS.i=�...,c�n-3�;�•�,„,rrs ne��-�^.��^r MP 2 0 0 tom. �-, ��:_.,... ..._ �_ -, �•_ .,,' Part Number j 1100004 ^j 1I0001 1 10010036 Price Per Unit (to be provided by $799 . 00 $1499 .00 $1079 .00 vendor) 9 9 9 .0 0 - Vehicle.Mounts Tolimson.Modvl _- - _- \_5 '—�..-:;: Part Number I MCS-CC�'S: I ! I I Price Per Tait(to i be provided by vendor) $52 . 50 no bid $76 . 00 $41 . 00 CITY OF TACOMA PROPOSAL SHEET Page 2 SPECIFICATION NO. G-014-99 Sofas are.Hardware I I I I I Proies§iomai.a _CF-2 _ .:��cc�: Part number 1730-00001~ 1021-00691 353-00005 C:-VCD271 1 Price Per Unit(to be Iinst1d *instld *instld provided by vendor) $171 .00 $330: OOz $355 . 00/ $309 . 50 I $224 . 00 Io r,1 *Limited to stock on hand Other I f ( I 1 •e. L �_ _ :�...� ';�aC1s�EY•1 'C:S -:�: . 5OG'�= :y��'LQ. �1L� ^ Part dumber u7C: =7 1 Cr-V E3711 !; C:-W C-:3, i :DC:-Z`- CF-�r3_71 i C:-�E3_:i ?rice Per Uait(to be prop:ded by ' $550 . 001 $286 .50 $285 . 00 1159 . 00 286 .50 i 21 4 .50 vendor) I I ! 1. Prices will be lirrn for Fri rqay& 2_ 3:dder offers the -allowing civantity discounts applicable tc Items ordered under this contract, include price sheet numbers, titles, dates and discounts Datec inc . ,;as included all quantity discounts on ,init price _ 3. Prompt Payment Discount 0 % 0 days, net 30. Delivery 7 calendar days (but no more than 14 days) from receipt oT purchase order at prices specified. 5. Sales Tax Rate Applicable to purchases on this contract A _ 4 WARRANTY 1. Attach manufacturer's assurance of warranty provisions as outlined in bid specifications. Bidder Datec Inc . PE City of Tacoma, Finance Department =0 3?t C= PUR�r Purchasing Division. (253) 502-8468 (must pear ORDER on an idng sfips and invoices) nrn� 1 M : DEG) f 5I' Z;:Isi'A"k NO I RESOLUTION/ORDINANCZ NO � PA TI.IL I FL"IAL 1 __.+ia 0RDEa:10. CHANGE ORDER NO j i DAB_?AID 4C�;CHEa NO i j YER VENDOR NO REQUIRED 0ZUVERY JAT'c DELIVER TO Lipt'%1 i r.13ENC �) ';��•.l..i�.^a AYE. ..... L'.Jl�i NDOR Ur+ iINU . I:ACOMA r WA CS40r: i :164 UPLAND DR Y;- 11NA HUBER -=_A'7 (LE , WA '7e i'..8 ACUL j BD.L TO ! LAW ENF RCEIMSNT SUP?CR- AGE.%1C'! >s: CIO LESA RECORDS anus 0 TACO;"A A;IE.SCUT- iACOMA, WA ?840_ 8 ;7—lE_5P1 ALl__AED I .:=ARCH _AS i RON �() —�'�_•J�.S?' Att= £CIALINSTRQCTIONS ICE �M j Q QuanaLy ascrpucIll unit Cost i'otai 3SD"r)I\,) 00 ! i..7 0 .01 :I) L'77 I FOR _;ADS Z000 M SC. 4AR:,WARE; i I • ( I I i ! I i ( i i APR 3 a 1999 Tata1 10 Li pans 1:120001).00 8uht'ctz. 15�0040. 00 P. O. Tot- al =rice 1720000.00 ARMS COOnrc BLOCK Budget Officer Date tem NO, una No. :.cN CSC ACCOUnt I TM I COL Warx Greer Amount I Z 7 7 3..77 564514 I-r-r1 oil( ,0,) I j 1 Pu ing Manager I Date r. j 2 2 = Panasonic ,asonie personal alputer Company 2 Panasonic way Pana=ip 70-6 Secaucus. N1 07094 Date: March'. 1999 To: City of Tacoma.City ofPuvallup, Pierce Counter From: Lisa Rhodes,Panasonic Personal Computer Co. Re: Authorized Resellers To Whom It May Concern, T'nis letter is to confirm that Datec Inc.of Tukwila, WA., is an authorized Panasonic laptop reseller. Panasonic offers a-three year manufacturer's warranty on all Panasonic laptops. This warranty is available to the Panasonic customer,directly from Panasonic even though the laptops are purchased through an authorized reseller. A cony of Panasonic's war=ry is attached. f} e :i Lisa Rhodes District Sales Manager Panasonic Personal Computer Co. A Division of Matsushita Electric corporation of America -?ROW- Kent Police Department Memorandum . TO : Jim White, Mayor CC: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police Charles-E. Miller, Patrol Division Commander Marty Mulholland, Information Services Director Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney From: Lieutenant Steve Ohlde Date: . June 16, 1999 Subject: Laptop Purchase This is a request for your approval to urlize a recent lbid contract to Datec by the City of Tacoma (See attached). The contract !'s _'LT lnptoo com liters to be used as Mobile Data Terminals (MDT's). The Councilman:c Bonds have been approved to replace our aging Mobile Data Terminals (MD.T's). _fie fierce County Sheriff s Office and the City of Puyallup Police Department are also utilizing this same contract. The Auburn Police Department is also considering using this same contract. Datec has agreed to provide us with the same terms, pricing, and warranty. Datec has quoted a price of $4,195.86 per unit. In March, we purchased three units at $4,918.99 each. Purchasing from Datec will provide the City with savings of 5723.13 on each unit. We need to purchase twenty units at a total cost of 583,917.20, this represents a savings of$14,462.60. Information Services was consulted to insure that we purchase equipment that is compatible with their needs. They have also requested that we purchase two FDD Cables for a floppy disk, as well as two CD Roms. This equipment will simplify programming and maintenance, and will cost 5739.00. The total price, to include sales tax at 8.6%, is $91,936.63. Page Laptop Purchase I researched the market and found Datec's price to be very reasonable. Under Procurement Code (Sec. 3.70.030 attached), the City may use another jurisdiction's bid. Based on this information, I believe we can join the Tacoma bid contract without seeking advertised bids for this procurement. Your signature of approval is requested below. Thank you for your consideration. Approved By: Jim White, Mayor Date Ed Crawford, C:ue of Police D to Reviewea by Deputy xttomey Tom Brubaker �yy Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PERMIT PROCESS ADDITIONAL STAFF - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization to amend the 1999 Budget in the amount of $397, 079 to add a total of -].1--- 13 positions (3 in Fire, 4 in Public Works, 4 in Planning) as recommended by the Operations Committee and shown in the attached staff report . In order to implement the recommendations contained in the Zucker report with respect to shortening response times for issuance of development permits in the city, staff has determined that additional personnel are required. It is recommended that the additional positions be authorized as an amendment to the 1999 Budget in order to commence the improvements as soon as possible. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from James Harris and supporting documentation 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $397, 079 SOURCE OF FUNDS : General Fund, hermit fee revenue 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E PROPOSED NEW PERMIT STAFF FOR 1999 AND BEYOND July 6, 1999 MEMO TO: Operations Committee Members: Judy Woods, Chair, Sandy Amodt and Tim Clark FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: Staff for the Permit System The Permit Advisory Task Force that I chair has been working on several fronts to attempt to implement the Zucker report titled Organizational Evaluation of Multi- Departmental Permit Process. A Mission statement has been prepared (see attachment) and timelines have been significantly reduced in line with suggestions made in the Zucker report (also attached). As the Task Force reviewed these proposed new timelines it became obvious that the current staff levels cannot handle the new timelines and also work through the great number of plans currently waiting to be reviewed. One solution is to contract work out to consultants and this is now being done to a certain degree in the Public Works Department and in the Planning Department's Development Services Division. However, these efforts only partially get at the current work load which is tied in with the current timelines. To be in a position to serve the City's permit customers by significantly reducing the time it takes to review and issue permits, the City needs to provide adequate staff resources to each department and division involved with the permit process. Each department and division has determined the following new staff positions that will allow the permit review timelines to be reduced. Proposed new staff Department Staff Title Class 1999 Costs 2000 Salary Fire • Plans Examiner 151 Class F.F. $ 34,152 $ 70,420 • Construction Inspector I`Class F.F $ 33,852 $ 70,420 • Intake Office Tech II AF 16E $ 22,302 $49,534 Public Works • Admin Secretary I NR 20E $ 28,181 $ 50,862 • Engineering Tech III(2) NR 32E $ 65,876 S131,026 • Construction Inspector NR 31E $ 33,143 $ 64,796 • Office Tech II AF 16E $26,953 $46,768 Planning • Development Permit Tech AF 27E $ 27,488 $ 58,885 • Plans Examiners(2) AF 37E $ 74,968 $147,700 • Planning Assistant NR 27E $ 31,639 $ 58,885 • Planning Aide(8 mo) Hourly $ 18,525 $ 31,020 TOTALS $397,079 $780,316 FIRE PREVENTION STAFF REQUESTS SALARY&BENEFITS 4 months 1 year Fire Prevention Plan Reviewer(FRIN A) 26,332 70,420 Wrok Station 3500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1600 17" Monitor 350 Software 300. 6150 Drafting table (approximate cost) 600 Emergency Supply kit 50 Various Office Supplies/Memberships 150 Software Training Casses 100 900 Uniforms/Safety Boots 770 770 Total Supplies and set up costs 7820 Fire Prevention Construction Inspector(FIRN A) 26,332 70,420 Work Station 3500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1600 17" Monitor 350 Software 300 6150 Emergency Supply kit 50 Cellular Telehpone 250 Cellular Airtime 50 Various Office Supplies/Memberships 150 Software Training Casses 100 600 Uniforms/Safety Boots 770 770 Total Supplies and set up costs 7520 Fire Prervention Office Tech II (AF16 A) 15,552 40,534 Work Station 3500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1600 17" Monitor 350 Software 300 6150 Emergency Supply kit 50 Various Office Supplies/Memberships 150 Software Training Classes 100 300 r Uniforms 300 300 Total Supplies and set up costs 6750 oc 00 Ic fV v^ N M -z x < ll- o e-i _ N M 10 0 N O� N — T z — C — N c Inoue M C, N en 2 M O H U G i C Q 3 rt O w � J N N F O Lj F� — z L N N o 0 0 LO LO M M r.� 00 fO 7 Q C) C N '^ cn — N M V) (n V1 z 40% rt�+ ON < o0 oo Ic E E �H M OC N V N f61 � Q z co X z X o cA LL 0 00 < c pp _ .�. can o0 00 Q cc) Ul) z M m CD C 0M0 -rr � 5 b� x o 00 EC In ac E L O � O Ic C � � o m o L m E E .v « c m o m m a) a) J ° co z co it co ¢ � is Cl) co ¢ o N � t ` � — .. o 0 E U cn F- 00 v, coF" > N N � O z co CD "ItE M rn z o � c6 � 2A 0Gi� § � WZ\ff % § - a000 a § u _ § 2 uj 0 - - - )CLILCL § ■ . . C4 2EE° § § w - - LU � LU . )IL2� § LU N IM « � )~ � w k§ � R u )��W � 0 m )� #7 LU f cm co 40 to U)mtoco GC ©z L < §j w 2 ` 0: a ; LU << ■ J GC �z LL < LL k LU CL §��§ )_§ . ccLAJ D �§§$ zLLU. LL'« < 0 - ■ § C4_ | §3§2 § § NC4 aR ! Proposed Staff for Public Works Department: Positions Class 1999 Costs 2000 Salary & Benefits only Admin. Secretary I (1) 20E $ 28,181 $ 50,862 4—Month 1999 Costs 21,731 (sal. &ben.) Work station 3,500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Misc. supplies 300 $28,181 12 Month 2000 Budget $38,184 Salary 12,678 Benefits $50,862 Total Eng. Tech. III (2) 32E $ 65,876 $131,026 4—Month 1999 Costs (Includes salary& benefits) $26,488 x 2= 52,976 Work station x 3500 X 2 7,000 Telephones$400x 2 800 Standard PC's$1600 x 2 3,200 17"Monitors$350 x 2 700 Software 300 x 2 600 Misc. supplies$300 x 2 600 $65,876 12 Months-2000 Budget for-2 Positions $51,156 x2=$102,312 Salaries 14 357 x 2= 28,714 Benefits $65,513 $131,026 Total 2 positions Proposed Staff for Public Works Department: Positions Class 1999 Costs 2000 Salary & Benefits only Office Tech. II AF16E $ 26,953 $ 46,768 4—Month 1999 Costs 20,403 (sal. &ben.) Work station 3,500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Misc. supplies 300 $26,853 12 Month 2000 Budeet $34,560 Salary 12,208 Benefits $46,768 Total Construction Inspector NR31E $ 33,143 $ 64,796 4—Month 1999 Costs 26,693 (sal. &ben.) Work station 3,500 Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Misc. supplies 300 $33,143 12 Month 2000 Budeet $49,944 Salary 14,852 Benefits $64,796 Total Proposed Staff for Planning Department Department: -� Positions Class 1999 Costs 2000 Salary & Benefits only Dev. Permit Tech AF27E $ 27,488 $ 58,885 4—Month 1999 Costs 24,338 (sal, &ben.) Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Code books 200 Misc. supplies 300 $27,488 12 Month 2000 Budget $45,288 Salary 13,597 Benefits $58,885 Total Plans Examiner (2) AF37E $ 74,968 $ 147,700 4—Month 1999 Costs $29,634 X 2= 59,268 Workstations(2) 7,000 Telephones(2) 800 Standard PCs (2) 3,200 17"Monitors(2) 700 Software(2) 600 Code books(2) 400 Drafting stools/tables(2) 2,300 Dues&Certif.(2) 400 Misc. s_pplies(2) 300 $74,968 12 Month 2000 Budget—2 Positions $57,960 x 2=$115,920 $15.890 x 2= 31,780 $73,850 x 2 $147,700 r- Proposed Staff for Planning Department Department: Positions Class 1999 Costs 2000 Salary & Benefits only Planning Assistant NR27E $ 31,639 $ 58,885 5—Months 1999 Costs 28,489 (sal. &ben.) Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Misc. supplies/svcs 500 $31,639 12 Month 2000 Budget $45,288 Salary 13,597 Benefits $58,885 Total Planning Aide NR27E $18,525 $ 31,020 5—Months 1999 Costs 15,875 (sal. &ben.) Telephone 400 Standard PC 1,600 17"Monitor 350 Software 300 Misc. supplies/svcs 500 $18,525 12 Month 2000 Budget($16.00/hr— 1700 hrs) $27,200 Salary 3.820 Benefits $31.020 Total J c'1 aD u7 a) P) CO K m J m N N 0 cD c In 7 co a) Q O c7 c) A m a) m c� N m CO O CO- r )f) m W)- cc! A c7 v c0 V cD ,M O p v t2 CO co c0 a> < c0 co � W c'nD n Lc) f' N N N N N N N v Vf Z A a) m cc) ^ cn v N A Z m m r O A cm r 0 0 W m m m to m m N N w N c0 o m w) m m m a) fD r a) a) a) 0 0 a) O w O .�- O O H EL ww omomo 'n ammmmmmo w M m m Ln mO mW coO o`�i N cam') ai aOf U N U JArAoAArr c rn rn Ja) o0)) mrnmr- Um0)) coif 0) 0)) 0) rl U ri(Ii cl cl onCli cli rn F- W N � � W v_ _ o v v m v o m r ~' co m co O M N Z LO r) a) Am cn O) m C. Z to N v 0 c7 N 'Q O OW O to r A a) m m 01 (D w r a) N cam) N cc') O O r w M — — N — N N N N W w Z W w O cr M N cmN N N N N N )_ N 1V N N N N N N 0 N waaaaaaaa � n. aaaaaaa a O U v m m r m r m N n 0 (� c-) a) m m m w) A v. W ca A W) a) v A O m v w N CD to ^ co m Q to C A r O w m cl cn m a) O v N c7 v fn N m f7 N mm4< U cy O N W O 0 Z y c0 JQ cO N CD O cn m v N Q coJ O v m O m v c0 O O _ m m O m wm Y � a) CD N r 0 0 N N N O _a) "Icn N r) A OI P7 N cD m _ w � � mcdccm 0mmwNvv )r v O — c7 m v N v ? n M1 �— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a mO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CD0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � O a T- w cV W w w w - W w w w LU (n m W W W W W W (n U w w 'DNNONchc, a clj r) Z N N cl) ? Q Q Q Q W Q Q Q O N c7 c7 Q (n pv vvtoLovvv 0N �! �2c2 ^ N �! c2 a W w W wwwr- wwww � c~i� www .- wwww � d w W tO 0 A 0 A N A O Ur N N N f`") c7 m J Z N N m Z Q Q Q Q _ Q Q Q Q O N CY c7 Q W 0 0 ❑_ U W C9 za za Z aU) z � Z z x r- ? = a x � ? _ cr O U tnz U cnZ = w Z � = wwF Oz r = ww � pOz Q cnx ¢ oF o — �_ a � IL pUw — U � Q a � uU, c) c� � � Q 4. a ~ cnMzzcWw cnazz LULu w w - LLJ- z zz Z 1) CLzz ~ zz E � > zZZc� z � � > zQza LL Cl W J o ¢ 0CLCLU OQogapUwa D LL LL LL LL D LL LL LL LL QQazzzzQ QQazzzzQ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o pp o 0 000 0O .- O - - 0cDow) (Dm o zU000to (: )m o C� IC) O v N N Ln a' Lo O v N N ca p m ao m m m � � m p ao m m m m lurl) " m (D N T N N U N a CM a) CV N U cm a m m v N m N N v m m v N m N N v w) Lo CM CD If) M M N a � W) N c0 U) M f J N a a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 25 5 25 0 REVENUE AND OTHER DOLLARS FOR PROPOSED POSITIONS PERMIT PROCESS REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL REVENUE AND OTHER DOLLARS AVAILABLE REGARDING THE PROPOSED STAFF FOR 1999: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Administration Division: Unused dollars for the Office Technician II position—Hire date not until 6/1199 $ 11,000 Unused Other Professional Services dollars 15,000 Planning Services Division Unused dollars for Planner position 47,000 Unused Other Professional Services dollars 4,000 Amount budgeted for Dev. permits in 1999 (001-000-224002-1810)is $ 35,712- Actual dollars received as of April 30, 1999 75.965- Excess dollars 4 months $ 19,747 59,241 (12 mo. excess) Amount budgeted for Other misc. in 1999 (ool-000-various-1810)is $ 60,720- Actual dollars recieved as of April 30, 1999 116.076- Excess dollars 4 months $ 55,356- 166,608 (12 mo. excess) Development Services Division: Amount budgeted for Building Permits thru 4/30/99 is $375,756- (See Page 20 in 2000 Budget Kickoff Booklet) Dollars received for Building Permits as of 4/30/99 is 575.447- Excess dollars 4 months $199,691- 599,073 (12 mo. excess) TOTAL DOLLARS IN PLANNING DEPT. IN 1999 $901,922 Less the amount the Planning Department set aside to cover the new positions in 1999 (150,000) TOTAL DOLLARS THAT COULD BE $751,922 USED FOR PROPOSED POSITIONS FIRE DEPARTMENT: There is no excess revenue available in 1999 for the proposed Permit Process $ -0- personnel staff. They will discuss at the Operations Committee a potential revenue source for the future to help pay for their proposed positions. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: This Department is researching excess revenue or unused salaries to see $ ? (Being Researched) if they have any dollars that can be utilized for their proposed positions. They will report this research at the Operations Committee meeting. PROPOSALS FOR PERMIT STAFF BASED ON WORK LOAD MEMORANDUM MAY 25, 1999 TO: CHAIRMAN JIM HARRIS PERMIT TASK FORCE FROM: ASSISTANT CHIEF LARRY WEBB SUBJECT: STAFFING NEEDS PROPOSAL — FIRE PREVENTION City Administration has clearly identified the Permit Process as "Mission Critical". Administrative Officer McFall very clearly stated that.... This is a high priority for the City and we will be expected to perform our functions to the City's level of expectation.... As Permit Process Team leaders, we have each taken a long hard look at our Unit's ability to provide quality, timely and professional customer service given the current level of resources available to us. We must consider future directives such as shortened time lines, an increase to the number of over the counter permits being issued and the implementation of a centralized permit counter and all that it entails. We must also, while analyzing our current resources, bear in mind that this is an evolving Permit Process and additional changes to the way we operate are a certainty. We believe to be successful it is absolutely necessary that we speak to current needs and begin to pro-actively plan for the future. Our intent is to participate successfully in this Process. After meeting with my Unit to discuss current and future demands for service we are ready to make those recommendations I feel will best keep us in the game. Plan Review Background The Permit Process for the entire City has faced major challenges over the last years that in and by themselves, have affected our customer service. Annexations and the rate of growth in our business community are just two impacts that have already begun to accelerate the number of permit applications now being reviewed. Over the past year we have seen the trend for new development increase as our Plan Reviewers began attending more and more Pre-Development meetings. At present our Plan Reviewers are attending 3 to 4 of these meetings a week, representing a major time commitment. Potential annexations will also increase the workload for our staff as we discovered with the Del Mar annexation. The timelines now in place for our Fire Sprinkler Systems and Fire Alarm Systems is set at 7 calendar days. They are required to review a set of plans for the new Home Depot in the same number of days as they would a small Tenant Improvement requiring a change to only 20 sprinkler heads or an addition of a new Alarm Panel. One is clearly more complicated than the other, but our Plan Reviewers consistently strive to reach the target date assigned to the project. They also participate in the review process for other types of permits and must work within those timelines. You take one Plan Reviewer out of the formula (Vacation, Sick Leave, Training, or Meetings) and the remaining reviewer must perform twice the number of plan reviews to keep up. This puts undo stress on them and already has hindered their ability to provide timely Plan Review. I FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc The above illustrates why our present staffing levels are already experiencing difficulty in keeping up with the demands for service. We have not added to this limited Plan Review staff for over 7 years. The numbers alone show the impact this has had on these individuals. In 1994 our Plan Reviewers reviewed 336 plans, in 1998 — 965 plans. That is well over a 200% increase in workload for these individuals. Along with the increase in number of plans came an equal increases in other duties associated with their job. Our Plan Reviewers live in the same world as all Plan Reviewers do. Their day is divided up among a multitude of tasks not directly related to plan review. Phone consultations are a common interruption of their day. Questions that need to be addressed, not related to a particular plan, must be answered. Meetings must be attended and technical skills must be kept current through training. These other demands on their time does cause Plan Review to slow down. Overtime became the only way that these two individuals could, at times, meet target dates. This can not remain our answer to the problem. Plan Review Staffing — Current PLAN REVIEW ROUTINE ACTIVITIES & TIME USED Two FTE Plan Reviewers = Available time each day for plan review = 16.0 hours Time requirements not associated W/ Plan Review each day Phone consultation non- Related to on-going plan Review -3.0 Preparations and Attendance at SEPA, Pre-Development, Short/long Plat, Completeness Check, Hearing Examiner, etc -3.5 Consulting on code compliance Issues with Inspectors, Fire Department Personnel and the General public -1.5 Total actual time available for Plan Review 8.0 hours This represents an average workday and demonstrates that rather than two FTE's dedicated to Plan Review, we actually have available two '/z FTE for Plan Review. 2 FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc Recommendation 1 One FTE Plan Reviewer This answers our immediate need based on the Zucker report and the direction we have been given. As explained above, our Plan Reviewers are already out of time. As new expectations are placed on our participation in the Permit Process, at their level of expertise, it is necessary that we have the trained staff immediately available. If, for example, shorten time lines were implemented tomorrow, we should have had that third Plan Reviewer on staff with us at least a month ago. It would be unrealistic to believe that an individual can come on staff and be totally productive the first day. We need to plan ahead for these directions and not be placed in the position of reacting to an emergency situation. Recommendation 2 One FTE Plan Reviewer The first Recommendation answers the need to supply staff for the various protocol decisions being made in conjunction with the Zucker Report, such as shorten time lines and an increase of Over the Counter permit issuance. However, there is one additional circumstance that each of our Departments/Divisions is analyzing in regards to the direction given us by Administrative Officer McFall. That is the implementation of a Centralized Permit Counter. Each of us will need to provide dedicated staffing to that counter and provide for both rotation and back up for that individual. This is a major change in the way we presently conduct business. We would expect this position to be filled by a Plan Reviewer. A dedicated counter position is just that and must be available the entire workday. The only responsible solution to a Centralized Counter is to add staffing. This individual must already have in place those skills the position will ` require. So again, our goal would be to have that individual here and ready to support the counter prior to it's implementation. It is therefore my recommendation that this Unit be allowed to add two additional Plan Reviewers. The need is absolutely certain in Recommendation I but the need for that second position becomes crucial when the Centralized Permit Counter is implemented. Construction Inspection Background Construction Inspections are equally affected by the Permit Process impacts already identified. We must remember that is an equally important component of the Permit Process and is as essential to our customer as the Plan Review. As the table below illustrates our Inspectors are already "maxed" out by their current workload. In this Unit we also face the issues of coverage for vacation, sick leave, etc. We have been consistently able to provide next day inspections. This has not always been easily accomplished. We believe in next day inspections — this is the final service we are obligated to perform and is an integral part in the Permit Process. We have consistently provided this level of service. As we examine current and future demands we have to consider this area of demand. Our customer will soon forget we gave him his permit in a timely fashion if he can't get his inspection on time. Contractors live in the now and we must remember this when analyzing staffing needs as it relates to Customer Service. 3 FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc Construction Inspection Staffing — Current CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ROUTINE ACTIVITIES & TIME USED _ Three FTE Construction Inspectors = Available time each day for plan review = 24.0 hours Time requirements not associated W/ Construction Inspection each day Phone consultation w/contractors Regarding upcoming Inspections And scheduling -3.5 Follow up on complaints, phone Consultations on inspection requirements W/Businesses, Fire Department staff, Development Services staff, etc. -3.0 Mandatory training, required seminars And Staff meeting -2.0 Other Inspections required by Fire Prevention, i.e. Permitted Occupancies, Annual, etc. -3.0 Total actual time available for Construction Inspection 13.0 hours This represents an average Construction Inspector's workday and demonstrates that rather than three FTE dedicated to construction inspections we actually have available approximately three '/z FTE Inspectors Recommendation One FTE Construction Inspector— This answers our immediate need in this area and is also based on the current and future impacts the Permit Process will impose. KIVA IMPACTS Another major impact to our Permit Process staff has been the implementation of the new automated (KIVA) system. Inspector Napier, as a member of the Implementation Team, has devoted countless hours to this project. He brought to the team a background in computers and software technology that became an invaluable resource both for KIVA representatives and our Information Services Division. As the project moved forward he began to assume more responsibilities and became the lead for all Divisions. This Department, based on its belief in the value of KIVA, released Jon from his construction inspection schedule when necessary. This provided 4 FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc him the time needed to work on the project. He spent time with each _ Department/Division to help design their processes. He never lost sight of the importance of the unified approach to KIVA and supported all involved, not just our Fire Prevention Staff. His is in the unique position of understanding the "big picture" as it relates to the Permit Process and KIVA. When KIVA went live, Jon became the help desk, if you will, for all KIVA users. He made himself totally available and provided whatever level of support was needed to keep the process moving. We are very proud of what he has accomplished and believe that Jon's participation both now and in the future should continue. This City has only begun to utilize the KIVA software. There are numerous programs and services that KIVA can offer. Jon understands the potential future uses of KIVA and could be essential in the continuing implementation of other KIVA components. While his total participation in KIVA over the last 6+ months has been essential, he feels that given time, this would roll back to a more manageable level which would allow him to re-assume some construction inspections. What this Division must consider if Inspector Napier does take on this type of assignment is the continuing impact this will represent to our Construction Inspection staff. The Table provided above for Construction Inspectors is one based on the best case scenario. The reality is that we consistently move assignments around within the entire Inspection Unit to support Construction Inspection. Our need for an additional Inspector will have to be considered to allow for this re-assignment to occur. However, this is not a decision that the Fire Department can make alone. It requires the Permit Team Leaders participation in the decision. We would ask that each Department/Division consider this situation as we have stated it and provide this Department with their opinions. Future Direction & Policy These positions represent our immediate needs. They are only the beginning of the answer to staffing needs. We must still consider the future impacts the new Permit Process will have on this Division. We would prefer to be at a staffing level that can produce the service required, rather than back fill with other members of this Division as we have consistently done in the past. A is clear from the Zucker report and the expectations made on us that performance is the objective. Therefore proper staffing and the ability to back up that staffing becomes critical. We can not have our participation shut down due to lack of individuals ready to step in and perform those functions needed. There can be no "on the job" training when the time is here and the need is now. The addition of new plan reviewers and construction inspectors is easier said than accomplished. These are skilled positions that will require a period of training. Understanding this we began in late 1997 a pro- active program designed to increase our In-house cross training of staff members involved in the Permit Process and will continue to do so. The one other area of concern that this Division must address for the future may not be as visible as the technical positions already identified. This is our Support Staff. 5 FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc Currently we have two individuals, an Administrative Secretary II and a Support Services Specialist. Our Admin Secretary has also devoted a considerable amount of her time to KIVA. In addition to that time, she has, along with the Plan Reviewers, devised a new In-Take procedure that was implemented when KIVA went live. While data entry for in-take represent a minor impact on time, the in-take procedure we are now using does. Our Plan reviewers have already seen the benefit of this and we believe that this procedure will be an integral part of KIVA's success for this Division. We will therefore be recommending for our 2000 Budget Year presentation the addition of an Office Tech II to our support staff. This individual will assist in In-Take and other routine office functions. As you can see, we are actively planning for the future in this Division. We intend to meet the immediate needs and not be caught short again. We hope you will give our recommendations your support. Thank you. pt cc: Chief Angelo 6 FPSTAFFNEEDS.doc Public Works Analysis for Increased Personnel Hours available for plan review per FTE PR Hours Available Hours per year (52 x 40) 2080 AL - 96 SL - 72 Holiday - 88 1824 .65 1186 Hours available per FTE Engineering Total Barb Ozzie Robert Frank Richard Design (1) (2) (2) Techs (Supporting Permit Process) Plan Review/Resubmittals 65% 50% 60% 65% 35% 35% 40% Internal Customers 6% 20% 10% 10% 5% 5% 10% Meetings 10% 10% 20% 15% 5% 5% 0% Public Counter/Phone 15% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 45% Training/Conference 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% Miscellaneous 3% 14% 4% 4% 0% 0% 4% 100% (1) Prior to KIVA Coordination (2) Work in other Engineering Sections remainder of%. (3) FTE's for plan review purposes. Does not include FTE's for permit processing. Work Load Demand: AVERAGE YEAR NUMBER TIME REQ. TOTAL OF PERMITS TO PROCESS HOURS Water,Sewer, Street Use 1996 1128 1 HOUR 1128 1997 1294 1 HOUR 1294 1998 993 1 HOUR 993 AVERAGE: 1138 YEAR NUMBER TIME REQ. TOTAL OF PERMITS TO PROCESS HOURS Grade & Fill 1996 60 10 HOUR 600 1997 49 10 HOUR 490 1998 29 10 HOUR 290 AVERAGE: 460 1598 TOTAL PERMITS 1598/1186 = 1.35 FTE'S* * This is additional number of FTE's needed to do the work. r YEAR DOLLARS FTE'S $ PERMIT FEES HOURS TOTAL TOT. PER FTE PER/FTE AVAL/HR ACTU. 1996 163,053 3.5 46,587 1186 4158 4158 1997 377,257 4.5 46,587 1186 5346 9623 1998 366,454 4.5 46,587 1186 5346 9350 1999 383,222 4.5 46,587 1186 5346 9777* 9777 —4158 =5619 5619/1188=4.73 FTE'S Additional FTE's needed (not including position needed for water, sewer, street use and grade & fill permits. The above analysis does not include the needed receptionist or inspector. However, with the increased work load, inspection and secretarial work increases. The additional plan review fees for 1999 above the 1996 fees easily can account for the costs for additional personnel. *Projected CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION (253) 859-3360 MEMORANDUM June 4,1999 TO: Jim Harris, Planning Director/Permit Coordinator // Y'L FROM: Bob Hutchinson, Building Official /7 L) SUBJECT: Permit Process/Development Services Documentation of Staff Needs In my April 16,1999 memo to you, the immediate need for one (1) additional Development Permit Technician and one (1) additional Plans Examiner was expressed as urgently needed even before the Permit Advisory Taskforce worked out target date timeline reductions. Now that reduced target timeline goals have been identified, the staff increases needed to meet those goals have been more carefully calculated. They comprise one (1) additional Development Permit Technician and two (2) additional Plans Examiner positions. Further information supporting the need to add these positions is as follows. Development Permit Technician (1): Workload/staff level imbalances in this function were documented in July, 1998 and reiterated in my April, 1999 memo. The information and conclusions addressed in those memoranda are still applicable. Raw numbers of permit applications received are a rough, but useful measurement of Permit Technician workload. The attached chart "Permit Customer Service Staff" shows staff FTEs constant at 3 employees in this function, while the chart "Permit Customer Service Workload" show permit applications received increasing steadily. In addition, other factors have combined to further worsen the staff/workload imbalance. Workload has outpaced staff resources even more than shown for the following reasons: • Since July, 1998, a trend has been growing toward consolidation of multiple permits (i.e.- building, plumbing, mechanical) into single permit applications. This reduces the raw count of the number of permit applications received, but the increased complexity negates any reduction in workload. • The implementation of the KIVA system following the temporary inefficiencies posed by the learning curve and adjustment to using a different tool, will require at least as much permit technician staff effort as the automated system it is replacing, for no 1 net gain in efficiency. • The expected reliability of the KIVA system working through an improved network will require effort to remain current in such things as document image scanning of permit related documents. This function has been suspended for most of the past two years because of equipment/system failures and lack of staff time to do the - work. • Recent and ongoing heavy use of"basic" construction plans for repeated construction of pre-approved single-family house designs require more permit technician time. The plan to shorten permit process timelines will require immediate availability of permit technician staff and will not allow for avoidable processing delays. Heightened customer service expectations will probably be raised further by the expanded _ information-sharing capabilities that the KIVA system may make possible, while others are likely to grow from the City's internal streamlining strategies. None of the likely changes will reduce the permit technicians' workload; many changes can be expected to increase it. While adding the needed position to this work group will not, by itself, create success for service improvements-in the permit center, failing to do so will certainly sabotage our other efforts toward improvement. Plans Examiners (2): r My April 16,1999 memo described the immediate and urgent need for "...a minimum of one (1) permanent full-time plans examiner to process °over-the-counter" permits...". Further analysis shows that two (2) such permanent full-time positions are needed to in order to provide counter" plan review, meet the anticipated plan review workload demand, and accelerate target date timelines as planned. OCounter"plan review. Zucker recommends one position which he terms a "Senior Technician" in his report (See Priority 1 Recommendations 63 & 64, pp.63-64) to provide the staff capability to process many more permit applications requiring minor plan review at the counter. This is a valid recommendation which would have the dual effect of providing much more immediate service to customers seeking these permits and of lessening the volume of permit applications to be reviewed by the other plans examiners. The latter effect would, in tum, allow for the permits being processed by the other plans examiners to be reviewed more quickly, making it possible to shorten those plan review timelines. Our intent is to provide constant coverage of this service, while maintaining flexibility in staff assignments so as to allow for back-up staffing as needed, and potential rotation of staff to this position over time. This would provide the maximum service level, while enhancing consistency within the plan review work team. Workload demand: _ Zucker calculates that "...5.36 Plan Checkers [are] needed...", adding that "...staff can be supplemented as necessary by consultants." (page 62), basing his calculation on the first 11 months of 1998. A more detailed analysis has been done based on the last - three complete years' data (1996,1997,and 1998) and on staff estimates (based on actual work time logs) of time needed for plan review of various types of projects, as follows. The attached "Development Services Plan Review Workload Demand" worksheet lists some thirty-one types of construction projects requiring Development Services (DS) plan review, along with staff estimates (consistent with Zucker—page 62) of average plan review time needed for each such project. The worksheet also shows the number of each project type actually submitted for permits for each year, along with calculated total hours needed. The yearly totals of hours needed show demand growing from 4,207 hours needed in 1996 to 5,086 in 1997, and to an overwhelming 6,459.5 in 1998. Hours available per FTE are calculated at 1824 per year, but with demands other than production plan review consuming 35% of this time, 1186 hours are actually available per FTE per year. This assumes no vacancies, long-term illnesses, or use of overtime. The attached "Hours available for plan review per FTE" shows the details of this calculation. Attached is "1998 Actual Plan Review Hours Analysis", which details the actual hours (from payroll records) of all DSD employees who performed plan review work in 1998. It also incorporates estimates of time used by consultants based on the work sent them and the previously discussed "...Workload Demand 1996 —1998" time requirements by project type. This analysis shows that 5,292 plan -view hours were collectively used in 1998, drawing on consultant contracts, a part-t­,ie temporary employee, diverting time from inspections supervision, and intense use of overtime to generate the time. These extreme efforts fell short of meeting the calculated demand of 6,459.5 hours by 1168 hours, as evidenced by the lengthy target date timelines and customer dissatisfaction from this period. The attached calculations clearly show the need for 5.4 FTEs to adequately staff this function. These calculations are in fact conservative, as Zucker recommends 5.36 FTEs in addition to consultants as necessary (page 62). Current staffing is at 3.5 FTEs, requiring the addition of two more Plans Examiners. Reduced timelines: The above calculations do not reflect any staff additions for the purpose of reducing target date timelines for completion of plan review, on the assumption that any given olan will require the same amount of review time, whether the work is done immediately 3 or later. However, significant factors in matching staff levels to workload are; the amount of fluctuation in workloads over time; the amount of fluctuation in staff resources over time; and the resultant degree of predictability of plan review time that can be maintained for our customers. The plan to increase DSD plan review staff to 5.5 FTEs will reduce the potential impact of a solitary vacancy on the function (this happened twice in 1998). It also envisions termination of the use of remote, part-time temporary employees and consultants, except for unforeseen "emergency° circumstances, as well as ending the borrowing of the inspection supervisor for plan review. Handling all plan review in-house with dedicated staff will increase accuracy and consistency, enhance communications with our customers, improve responsiveness, and provide sufficient "critical mass' to weather minor, temporary workload/staff imbalances. This level of staffing is calculated to significantly reduce overtime, which not only increases efficiency, but also leaves the use of overtime/compensatory as an emergency resource. This is the best way to prepare for managing staff level fluctuations. Workload fluctuations are caused by customers filing varying numbers and types of permit applications. Not only can this not be controlled, but also it can not be predicted with any useful degree of accuracy. Zucker attempted to analyze these fluctuations (page 61), but ultimately concluded that there was "...very little consistency of peak seasons." and could only produce a recommendation that "The Development Division should adopt a specific peak loading strategy." Further, more detailed analysis shows that fluctuations are even greater and less predictable than Zucker found. Conclusions based on number of permit applications filed requiring DSD plan review (Zucker used gross numbers of permit applications filed as his data source), excluding a one-month. anomaly (December, 1995 — school impact fees) show that the high monthly volume may exceed the average (for that year) by as much as 71%, while the low month may be as much as 44% under the average. In addition, reviewing the data from the 5-year period of 1994 — 1998 shows that any month except March could be one of the two highest or two lowest. The only reasonable conclusion is that we must staff to a higher level within the fluctuation range to be consistently able to produce quick plan review customer service. Staffing to 5.5 FTEs allows little room for error, but is the minimum staff needed based on recent workload data. In conclusion, the data inescapably lead to the conclusion that the identified needs of one (1) Development Permit Technician and two (2) Plans Examiners must all be met in - order to successfully meet the service requirements of our customers. We are not now able to meet current target date timelines: It is patently clear that our permit process service levels can not be improved to meet expectations without these positions. 4 Permit Customer Service Staff 3.5 3 2.5 N 2 6� O O 1 W 0 e r LL 1.5 1 0.5 0 -- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Permit Customer Service Workload 3500 3000 79 2500 48 4 m d U 61 cr ✓1 0 2000 A a 1871 o. Q E 16 m` a `6 m` 1500 n z R 0 F- 1000 500 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Development Services Plan Review Workload Demand 1996 - 1998 PROJECT TYPE 1998 1997 1996 Hours' Projects Total Projects Total Projects Total NEW RESIDENTIAL 8 216 1728 161 1288 138 1104 NEW RESIDENTIAL BASIC 8 41 328 60 480 26 208 ADD RESIDENTIAL 5 37 185 26 130 30 150 ADU DETACHED 5 0 0 3 15 4 20 ACCESSORY BUILDING 3 5 15 19 57 4 12 ADU ATTACHED 5 0 0 1 5 1 5 NEW COMMERCIAL 30 88 2640 61 1830 49 1470 HOTELS 40 1.1 440 4 160 1 40 ADD COMMERCIAL 20 11 220 12 240 17 340 ALTERATION 1.5 183 274.5 192 288 210 315 TENANT IMPROVEMENT 2 54 108 48 96 63 126 CHANGE OF USE 3 8 24 6 18 7 21 MEZZANINE 2 6 12 0 0 0 0 DECK 0.5 46 23 71 35.5 34 17 FOUNDATION ONLY 1 10 10 11 11 15 15 GARAGE 1 38 38 23 23 23 23 MOBILE HOME 0.5 9 4.5 4 2 2 .1 SITE SPECIFIC BASIC 0.5 112 56 121 60.5 21 10.5 OTHER 0.5 93 46.5 68 34 48 24 RACK STORAGE 0.5 66 33 53 26.5 48 24 REROOF/REPAIR 1 16 16 31 31 16 16 REVISION 0.5 162 81 146 73 176 88 SIGN 0.5 32 16 40 20 37 18.5 TANK 0.5 13 6.5 6 3 13 6.5 WALK-IN COOLER 0.5 11 5.5 7 3.5 5 2.5 DEFR 1 7 7 0 0 0 0 MECHANICAL 1 133 133 152 152 149 149 SPRAY BOOTH 1 9 9 4 4 1 1 LANDSCAPING 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ALARM 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 PLUMBING 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Total Projects Hours 6459.5 5086 4207 Estimated plan review hours required by project type. Hours availabe for plan review per FTE Hours _ PR Available Hours per year 52/40 2080 AL -96 SL -72 Holiday -88 1824 0.65 1186 Hours available per FTE Plan Review/Resubmittals 65% Internal Customers 10% Meetings 5% Public Counter/Phone Res 15% Training/Conference 2% Miscellaneous 3% 100% 1998 Actual Plan Review Hours Analysis NAME Comp CTE NSL OTR REG RHL VAC •MISC KC Ellis 0 0 -40 0 156 -20 -4 -40 52 Harry Hardey 0 7 0 217 0 0 0 224 Cathi Korth -23.8 14.25 -47 -8.75 846.25 -44 -55.75 -27.875 653.375 Debra Carlson -28 35 0 0 814 -28 0 793 John Levien -36 31.5 -2 12.5 198 -24 0 180 Bill Zeitler -76.5 171.75 -31.5 343.5 1772 -88 -0.5 -40 2050.75 KC Ellis PT 291 291 Total Employees hours 4244.125 Total Consultant hrs (estimated) 1048 5292.125 Est plan review hours needed 6459.5 Actual hours available 5292.125 Excess plan review demand 1167.375 ` Miscellaneous includes leave without pay,jury duty, bereavement, etc... 1998 Workload Hours Hours Available/FTE FTE's Needed 6459.5 1186 6.4465 ` MEMORANDUM May 26, 1999 TO: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PERMIT TARGET DATES ON STAFFING LEVELS IN THE PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION First of all, let me begin by saying that I don't think the solution to every new work task is to create a new position to deal with it. Sometimes, the best strategy is to take a look at the overall work program, narrow down and re-prioritize the work tasks, and absorb the new work with existing personnel. Depending on the type of task, there may be other ways to get the work done without creating new positions. As a last resort, when it becomes clear that existing staff cannot effectively handle the workload, nor can it re- prioritize projects without adversely affecting timelines or efficiency, then new positions are warranted. Based upon an analysis of workload in the current planning section of the Planning Services Division, it is my conclusion that two (2) new positions are required in order to properly conduct permit review according to revised timelines, as proposed. Two things come together to warrant additional (current planning)positions in the Planning Services Division: 1) implementation of revised timelines for development and land use permits, and 2) implementation of Ordinance 93424. The revised timelines relate to those outlined in your draft Multi-departmental Permit Process Implementation Plan report for Type A (minor permits), Type B (major permits), Type C (land use), and Type D (land use permits). Ordinance#3424 was adopted in late 1998 and enacts state- mandated regulatory reform. This ordinance significantly affected the way we process permits, particularly those actions which require SEPA review. Effects of Revised (shorter) Timelines for Permits: Exhibit A (attached) illustrates the number of development permits processed by the Plannning Department for the period 1996-1999 (through April). Exhibit B (attached) outlines the land use permit activity for the period 1995-1998. Together, both exhibits give a fairly accurate indication of permit activity and workload within the Planning Services Division. Assuming revised permit timelines for minor and major development permits as well as for land use permit applications, the following additional staff hours are required in order to meet targets (based on 1824 hours net hours per planner): Development Permits - New residential 150 hours - New residential (basics) 25 hours - Residential additions 25 hours _ - New commercial 1074 hours - Alterations (TI's) 118 hours - Garages 20 hours - Revisions 15 hours - Signs 220 hours - Decks 15 hours - Other(includes ADU, tanks, etc.) 150 hours 1812 hours (1.0 FTE) Land Use Permits - Administrative decisions 34 hours - Conditional use permits 94 hours - Lot line adjustments 68 hours - Subdivisions—preliminary plats 100 hours - SEPA 65 hours - Variances 65 hours - Others (includes CPA, FSU, BSP, etc) 400 hours 826 hours (0.45 FTE) Effects of Ordinance#3424 (New Permit Processing Procedures: Ordinance 43424 implemented new permit procedures which were required by state law. While much of this ordinance only pertained to actions which required SEPA review, it also affected other permit areas. These new procedures require additional work, such as: - Pre-application meetings (required of all major projects) - Notices of completeness (required for all major projects) - Notices of application (required of all major projects) - Posting (expands certain notification requirements) - Completeness meetings (meetings are now held to determine completeness) It is estimated that the additional hours required to complete procedures and review mandated by this ordinance equals approximately 440 hours (0.25 FTE). Recommendations and Options for Staffing: Based on the above analysis of additional workload, there is a need for 1.7 FTE positions in the Planning Services Division. I would propose the following strategy for filling this need: 1. Hire a Planning Tech, which would be a full-time position with benefits. It would be at or slightly below the level of our existing Planning Assistant position. The duties of this new position would be to review and approve exclusively minor development permits (which would include new residential permits, tenant - improvements, and the like). 2. Hire a Planning Aide, which would be an 8-month temporary position (much like our former planning intern position). The pay would be hourly and the duties would include review of minor development permits such as decks, accessory buildings, temporary uses, garages, counter duty, and other minor development permits). It is anticipated that this position would be full-time for eight months and part-time for four months. Both of these positions would be focused on minor development permits. This would allow our existing planners to concentrate more on the major development and land use permits. CIredslstaffreq.doc PROJECT TYPE 1999 1998 1997 1996 NEW RESIDENTIAL 24 216 161 138 539 NEW RESIDENTIAL BASIC 37 41 60 26 164 D RESIDENTIAL 14 37 26 30 107 ADU DETACHED 0 0 3 4 7 ACCESSORY BUILDING 4 5 19 4 32 ADU ATTACHED 0 0 1 1 2 79 299 270 203 851 ._0.196581: NEW COMMERCIAL' , 10 88 61 49 208 1 6-rtLS .s 1 11 4 1 17 ADD COMMERCIAL 4 11 12 17 44 15 110 77 67 269 "0.062139 ALTERATION 60 183 192 210 645 0.148995 TENANT IMPROVEMENT 15 54 48 63 180 CHANGE OF USE" 1 8 6 7 22 MEZZANINE 0 6 0 0 6 76 251 246 280 208 0.048048 DECK 8 46 71 34 159 FOUNDATION ONLY 2 10 11 15 38 RAGE 21 38 23 23 105 iv,JBILE HOME 0 9 4 2 15 31 103 109 74 317 0.073227 SITE SPECIFIC BASIC 46 112 121 21 300 0.0693 OTHER 19 93 68 48 228 RACK STORAGE 24 66 53 48 191 REROOF/REPAIR 1 16 31 16 64 REVISION 60 162 146 176 544 SIGN 11 32 40 37 120 TANK 2 13 6 13 34 WALK-IN COOLER 4 11 7 5 27 DEFR 12 7 0 0 19 MECHANICAL 54 133 152 149 488 187 533 503 492 1715 0.396165 SPRAY BOOTH 0 9 4 1 14 LANDSCAPING 0 0 0 1 1 ALARM 0 0 5 1 6 PLUMBING 0 1 2 0 3 0 10 11 3 24 434 1418 1337 1140 3684 0,994455 j Table 17 Permit Activity * pJC�;2?0hP; F. E 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 i thru pro- Nov rated Accessory Dwelling Unit n/a n/a 5 5 0 0 Administrative Decision n/a n/a n/a 8 7 8 Appeal of Ad Interpretation 1 01 1 1 4 4 Appeal of SEPA 0 1 3 6 9 10 Determination Binding Site Plan 1 3 3 1 2 2 Code Amendment 4 10 8 9 6 6 Comp. Plan Map Amendment 0 4 5 9 10 11 ' Conditional Use Permit 9 7 5 8 14 16 i Downtown Design Review n/a 3 3 2 7 8 Lot Line Adjustment 26 34 36 20 37 40 Planned Unit Development 0 0 0 0 1 1 SEPA Checklist 76 83 89 81 76 83 _ Shoreline Conditional Use 0 2 01 0 1 1 Shoreline Substantial Dev. 3 9 4 3 3 3 Shoreline Variance 3 6 2 2 1 1 Short Plan (2-9 lots) 21 30 38 34 25 27 Subdivision-Tentative Plat 1 10 20 11 14 15 Subdivision-Preliminary Plat 1 4 161 9 9 10 Subdivision-Final Plat 3 5 1 7 7 9 10 Variance-Administrative n/a n/a n/a 5 1 1 Variance-Single Family 3 21 41 0 2 2 Variance-Sign & Non-Single 3 8 1 121 5 4 4 Zone Map Amend (Rezone) 1 7 1 101 12 , 101 11 SUB TOTAL 156 228 I 271 238 I 251 274 Zordng Permit/Site Plar. 860 747 I I 879 II 1114 Review ( 693 ! 1022 TOTAL 10161 975 1 9641 11171 1273 1388 The annexations to the city began in mid-1994, and therefore we looked at the 1995- . 1998 years for comparisons with the active year of 1991. When 1998 case numbers are prorated for a full year, the number of land use applications has increased almost 76% since 1991 and the number of development permits increased 30%. Between t Kent 73 Zucker Systems 1 MISSION STATEMENT CITY Of 10 'NlS�J� KENT PERMIT CENTER .1 Mayor Jim W,,;te MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Kent Permit Center is to provide the City's permit customers and citizens with a friendly, timely and fair permit process in a collaborative framework while maintaining the integrity of the City's development codes and by protecting and promoting the public interest in a safe and appropriate manner. We implement our mission through education, coordination and respect, and by � providing comprehensive and accurate information and facilitating access to information and by effectively administering it the City's development regulations. MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL PERMIT PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (REDUCTION IN TIMELINES) CITY OF 7��� !N V ICTJ Mayor Jim White MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL PERMIT PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Zucker System's report titled, Organizational Evaluation of Multi-Departmental Permit Process. City of Kent, Washington has two basic premises. The first is that it takes too long to get a development permit in Kent and the second is that the City should develop a co-located permit center. The very first recommendation in the report states: The Mayor and operations Manager and relevant department directors should review this report and agree on an implementation plan, which should include: • An agreed upon timetable and work program • Cost estimates and method of funding • Confirmation by elected officials Two of the seven key recommendations in the Zucker report relate directly to this implementation report: • Timelines Timelines should be set for all permitting functions and current timelines should be substantially shortened. • Co-Location The City's long-term space plans should be modified to provide an integrated co-located permit system. In order to focus directly on the major recommendations of the Zucker report, the City has appointed a Permit Coordinator (as called for in the Zucker report) and formed two committees; an Executive Committee made up of the Chief of Operations, key department heads and staff, and a Permit Advisory Task Force consisting of the Coordinator and key permitting staff. 1 The Taskforce meets weekly and has focussed on the timelines issue for the near future and is also focussing on the Co-located Permit Center for the longer future. The implementation strategy is organized into two phases: I. Timelines for issuing _ permits in the near future; II. Co-located permit center: Phase I is currently in progress while Phase II will be under way in the summer of 1999. The Zucker report contains many suggestions for City staff to consider while implementing the two phases of the permit process. The report speaks to the need for customer service training, better inter- departmental and division coordination, updating mission statements, agreeing on timelines for all review activities, simplifying functions, and planning for future space configurations. PHASE I - TIMELINES FOR ISSUING PERMITS The Zucker Report contains 22 recommendations directly associated with timelines and several which support these recommendations. The Taskforce has determined that timelines can be speeded up in line with suggestions made in the Zucker Report. However, this speed up comes with a cost: an increase in staffing levels which are necessary in order to not only speed up permits, but to keep up with an ever increasing permit load. The following timelines are proposed for implementation contingent on obtaining necessary staff. These timelines are generally based on those suggested in the Zucker Report. TYPE OF PERMIT TYPE A MINOR PERMITS TYPE OF PERMITS CITY PROCESS TIME FORMER TIMELINES (WORK DAYS/WEEKS) • DEMOLITION ONE WEEK MORE THAN ONE WEEK • MOBILE HOME RELOCATION ONE DAY ONE DAY • PLUMBING ONE DAY ONE DAY • REROOF ONE DAY ONE DAY • MECHANICAL ONE DAY ONE DAY • SOUND ABATEMENT • ONE DAY ONE DAY • DECKS ONE WEEK ONE WEEK • FENCES/GATES ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS • MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW ONE WEEK ONE WEEK • MINOR T. I.(alterations ONE WEEK ONE WEEK not increasing floor space or introducing hazardous 2 materials) • RACKS ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS • REVISIONS (To already issued permits) ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS - • SIGNS ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS • SINGLE FAMILY(basics THREE WEEKS SIX WEEKS plan review) • SINGLE FAMILY(basics ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS site specific permit) • ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ONE WEEK TWO WEEKS • PARKING LOT TWO WEEKS TWO WEEKS • RESIDENTIAL REMODEL TWO WEEKS FOUR WEEKS • CHANGE IN USE THREE WEEKS SIX WEEKS • GARAGES/CARPORTS THREE WEEKS FOUR WEEKS • MAJOR T.I. THREE WEEKS SIX WEEKS • SINGLE FAMILY(NEW) THREE WEEKS SIX WEEKS • RESIDENTIAL ADDITION THREE WEEKS SIX WEEKS TYPE B —MAJOR PERMITS (almost all type B permit applications are associated with a SEPA checklist. The following timelines include all the time it takes to review SEPA, process the permit application and issue the permit; public hearings are not required) CALENDAR DAYS TO ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT (if an application for the building is made with SEPA) • COMMERCIAL(OFFICE&RETAIL) 70 DAYS FOR ALL DEPTS/DIV. • INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE • SINGLE FAMILY—WETLANDS/STREAMS " • SHORELINE PERMIT 3 • MULTIFAMILY PROJECT " " " " " " " -- TYPE C PERMITS — LAND USE (all type C permit applications require a public hearing and SEPA) CALENDAR DAYS TO HEARING • SUBDIVISIONS—PRELIMINARY 70 TO 80 DAYS • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT " • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT " • TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY " TYPE D (SEPA is not required; LAND USE PERMIT administrative approval is required) WORK FORMER TIMELINES WEEK TO ISSUANCE OF PERMIT • ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOUR WEEKS FOUR`� : :S • ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION TWO WEEKS THREE WF_.'KS • ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TWO WEEKS FOUR WEE; • BINDING SITE PLAN FOUR WEEKS SIX WEEK; • DESIGN REVIEW(No meeting) THREE WEEKS EIGHT WEEKS • DESIGN REVIEW(With meeting) FOUR WEEKS EIGHT WEEKS • LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TWO WEEKS TWO WEEKS • SHORT PLAT(calendar days to 40 DAYS 40 DAYS meeting) • TELECOMMUNICATION THREE WEEKS FOUR WEEKS (Administrative) • TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TWO WEEKS FOUR WEEKS 4 TYPE E PERMITS (Type E permits are processed in the Public Works Department, Fire Department and the Development Services Division) WORK DAYS, FORMER TIMELINES WEEKS TO ISSUANCE OF PERMIT • FLOOD ZONE ONE DAY ONE DAY • HOUSE MOVE " • SIDE SEWER " • STREET USE " • MINOR UTILITY FRANCHISE ONE WEEK PERMITS (outside agencies) • MAJOR UTILITY FRANCHISE ONE WEEK TO EIGHT WEEKS PERMITS(outside agencies) • WASTE WATER DISCHARGE ONE WEEK ONE WEEK • WATER METER ONE DAY ONE WEEK • GRADE AND FILL(under 500 cu. FOUR WEEKS EIGHT WEEKS yds.) • TANK THREE WEEKS FOUR WEEKS • HYDRANTS TWO WEEKS TWO WEEKS • COMMERCIAL SPRINKLER " • FIRE ALARM SYSTEM " • HOOD AND DUCT SEPARATION " • PRIVATE FIRE LINE (INCLUDES HYDRANTS) 61 " • RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLER " • SPRAY BOOTHS 41 " 5 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TECHNICAL STAFF POSITIONS, FURNITURE & RENTAL FEES - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization to revise the 1999 Operating Budget and Technology Plan Budget to include technical staff positions and rental fees included in June 28 , 1999 memorandum to Brent McFall and to revise the Capital Facilities budget by $90 , 000 for furniture for Information Services staff . This would add a total of 6 . 5 FTE ' s in Information Services . Three positions are to be funded from the Technology Plan including a Sr. Systems Analyst to work on the Police Technology Plan, a Web Project Coordinator, and a Payroll Project Analyst . The 1999/2000 cost to the technology budget for these three positions will be approximately $302 , 708 . 32 with funding for 2001 to be determined late in 2000 . 3 . 5 positions are to be funded from I .S . operating funds including a Systems Group Manager, a Sr. network Technician, a P.C. Group Supervisor and increasing the . 5 Help Desk Assistant to full- time . The 1999/2000 cost to the operating budget will be approximately $329, 853 . 87 . In addition, staff requests approximately $90, 000 to adjust the new and older work areas for staff and move the "Client Services" (Help Desk, training, P . C. Technical Support) staff to the 4th floor suite available in the Centennial building. Rental fees of approximately $7, 500 will be incurred in 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Brent McFall and Memo from Marty Mulholland 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee on 7/6/99 (unanimous) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $730 , 062 . 19 approx. SOURCE OF FUNDS : Technology Plan & 1999/2000 Operating Budget 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F MEMORANDUM TO: COUNCIL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: BRENT McFALL Z4� SUBJECT: TECHNICAL STAFF ADDITIONS DATE: June 29, 1999 Attached you will find a memorandum from Marty Mulholland which outlines her proposal for staff additions for continuing implementation of the Technology Plan as well as on going operations of the I.S. Department. If approved, these positions would be added to the 1999 Budget, and we would propose that they be carried over into the 2000 Budget. I concur with Marty's analysis and recommendation. I urge favorable committee action to recommend approval to the full Council at its nest meeting. Marty and I will be available to respond to questions regarding this proposal. Operating Fund Positions These positions are listed as operating positions because primarily these employees would support our expanded network and systems. Position Primary Project 1999 2000 Total 2-Year Total Total Systems Group Oversee Work of 5 Systems 32,414.04 99,964.89 132,378.93 Manager Analysts (Currently all systems analysts report directly to Marty). Sr. Network Technician We experience ongoing overtime 15,936.00 65,528.83 81,464.83 for Network division employees. Now we are adding fiber cable management and remote access management to workload for this division. P.C. Group Supervisor Would be a "hand-on" supervisor 22,328.32 68,860.54 91,188.86 for 2.5 P.C.Technicians. We have 505 P.C.s and significant numbers of laptops will be purchased in July for Police and Fire. Increase Help Desk We have 3 staff working on the 4,855.49 19,965.77 24,821.25 Assistant to Fulltime help desk but 2 of the 3 also do extensive training, support G.I.S., implement PC-based systems,etc. Moving this position to fulltime will provide more consistent support when users call for assistance and improve call resolution time. 329,853.87 Additional Office Space As you know, we have been looking forward to obtaining additional office space in the Centennial center. A 0 floor suite is available and we plan to relocate our"Client Services" (Help Desk, Training, P.C.Technical Support)staff to the new space. We believe it will take approximately$90,000 to adjust the new and older work areas for staff,and that rental fees will be$7500 in 1999. 0 Page 2 Memo To: Brent McFall, Director of Operations From: Marry Mulholland, Director of Information Servi Date: 06/29/99 Re: Technical Staff-Position Requests Position Requests Per your request, I have prepared the budgetary information to support a number of position requests. As you know, we have three primary factors supporting these requests: 1) We are behind schedule (and therefore have some funds available) in accomplishing some of the business objectives of the Technology Plan, and 2) We are experiencing continued extended overtime in our Network division, and 3) Our PC count has exceeded 500 and significant funding has been approved to purchase additional PCs for Police and Fire departments. Also per your request, I have staggered the timing for bringing in these personnel, both to relieve the budget impact and to be practical given the challenges of recruiting at this time. Technology Plan Funded Positions My proposal is to use the unallocated business systems budget plus a portion of the database licensing budget for these positions. We have revised our Oracle license and will not require the funds that we originally projected for database licensing. These positions would directly support business systems requirements. Funding for 2001 for these positions would have to be determined late in 2000. Positions are as follows: Position Primary Project 1999 Total 2000 Total 2-Year Total Police—Sr. Systems Analyst Police Technology Plan 21,780.48 89,561.33 111,341.81 Web—Project Coordinator Internet & Intranet web 21,780.48 89,561.33 111,341.81 sites Payroll Project Analyst New Payroll System 11,164.16 68,860.54 80,024.70 302,708.32 0 Page 1 Motion(s) Revise the 1999 Operating Budget and Technology Plan budgets to include technical staff positions and rental fees included in June 28, 1999 memorandum to Brent McFall. Revise the Capital Facilities budget by$90,000 for furniture for Information Services staff. 0 Page 3 �J J Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CLID 340 & 349 BOND SALES - ORDINANCE AND PURCHASE CONTRACT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their July 6 meeting, approval of Ordinance No. �q0 for CLID bond sales of $13 , 221, 661 and authorization for the Mayor to sign the purchase contract with Dain Rauscher, underwriters for City LID bonds . The bond sales are for street construction on 196th Street and for installation of sewers on SE 223rd Street NE. 3 . EXHIBITS : Memo from Finance Director Miller 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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G June 29, 1999 To: Mayor White and City Councilmembers From: May Miller, Director of Finance Subject: LID Bond Sales As recommended by Council at the June 1, 1999 Operations Meeting, authorization is requested to approve the ordinance for Bond Sale for LIDS 340 and 349. This is for street construction on 196th Street and for installation of sewers on SE 223rd Street NE and is the balance of $13,221,661 after deduction of$8,315,194 in prepayments within time alloted. Authorization is also requested to have the Mayor sign a purchase contract with Dain Rauscher who are the underwriters for city LID bonds. A draft of both the ordinance and purchase contract are included and will be substantially the same on final passage expected at the July 20, 1999 Council Meeting. Funds are expected August 5, 1999. A copy of the Preliminary Statement is also included. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve ordinance for CLID bond sale and authorize the Mayor to sign purchase contract with Dain Rauscher the LID underwriter. FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 09 Direct Phone (206) 447-8950 Direct Facsimile June 16, 1999 (206) 749-1950 E-Mail hamshlZ�foster.com VIA EMAIL (No original to follow) Ms. May Miller, Finance Director City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Mr. Dave Trageser I I I I THIRD Dain Rauscher Incorporated AVENUE 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2500 .suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3044 SEATTLE Washington 98101-3299 Re: City of Kent, Washington, Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds Telephone (206) 447-4400 Facsimile Attached via e-mail are a draft bond ordinance and approving legal opinion (206) 447-9700 for the referenced financing. Please review the draft ordinance carefully and call Websile with any comments or questions. W W W.FOSTE R.COM We are faxing our comments on the May 28, 1999, draft preliminary official statement to Dave this afternoon. Sincerely, FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC ANCHORAGE Alaska /S/ BELLEVUE Shelly L. Ham Washington Paralegal PORTLAND Enclosures Oregon SEATTLE cc: Roger Lubovich (via mail) Washington John Hillman (via mail) -- Joni Ostergaard (via e-mail) SPOKANE Washington 50104812.01 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE relating to local improvement districts; establishing Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 and Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 340 and 349; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates, maturity, and denominations of the Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds; providing for the sale and delivery thereof to Dain Rauscher Incorporated of Seattle, Washington; and fixing the interest rate on local improvement district assessment installments. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington (the "City"), heretofore has created Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349 for various purposes; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.45.160 authorizes the establishment of consolidated local improvement districts for the purpose of issuing bonds only and provides that if the governing body of any municipality orders the creation of such consolidated local improvement district, the money received from the installment payment of the principal of and interest on assessments levied within the original local improvement districts shall be deposited in a consolidated local improvement district bond redemption fund to be used to redeem outstanding consolidated local improvement district bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Consolidation of Local Improvement Districts. For the purpose of issuing bonds only, those local improvement districts of the City established by the following ordinances, respectively, the 30-day period for making cash payment of assessments without interest in each local improvement district having expired in the case of the assessments for each local improvement district, are consolidated into a consolidated local improvement district to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349: Local Improvement Created by Assessment Balance After District No. Ordinance No. 30-day Prepayment Period 340 3404 $13,040,468 349 3388 181,193 Section 2. Bond Fund. There is created and established in the office of the Finance Division Director of the City for Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 a special consolidated local improvement district fund to be known and designated as Consolidated Local Improvement Fund, District No. 340 and 349 (the 'Bond Fund"). All money presently on hand representing collections pertaining to installments of assessments and interest thereon in each of the local improvement districts listed in Section 1.shall be transferred to and deposited in the Bond Fund, and all collections pertaining to assessments on the assessment rolls of those _ local improvement districts when hereafter received shall be deposited in the Bond Fund to redeem outstanding Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 bonds. Section 3. Authorization and Description of Bonds. Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds (the "Bonds") shall be issued in the total principal sum of $13,221,661, being the total amount on the assessment rolls of Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349 remaining uncollected after the expiration of the 30-day interest-free prepayment period. The Bonds shall be dated August 1, 1999, shall mature on August 1, 2016, and shall be numbered from 1 to 2644, inclusive, in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal agencies of the State of Washington) deems necessary for the purpose of identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the denomination of $6,664.00 and Bonds Nos. 2 to 2644, inclusive, shall be in the denomination of$5,000.00 each. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds -2- 50103273.01 shall bear interest, payable annually on August 1 of each year beginning August 1, 2000, in accordance with the following schedule: Bond Numbers Interest (inclusive) Amounts Rates 1 — 177 $886,664 178—354 885,000 355 — 531 885,000 532— 708 885,000 709— 885 885,000 886— 1062 885,000 1063 — 1240 890,000 1241 - 1418 890,000 1419— 1596 890,000 1597— 1774 890,000 1775 — 1948 870,000 1949—2122 870,000 2123 —2296 870,000 2297—2470 870,000 2471 —2644 870,000 The Bonds are structured and the interest rates are fixed in anticipation of their estimated redemption based on projected assessment payments in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349, respectively. Section 4. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register"). Such Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each owner. Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's receiving the Bond to be transferred, canceling it and issuing a new certificate in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the name and address of the transferee on the Bond Register. The new certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the transferred Bond but may -3- 50103273.01 have a different inventory reference number or control number. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or redemption date. Section 5. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Bond Fund and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by checks or drafts mailed to the registered owners on the interest payment date at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar at the option of the owners. _ Section 6. Redemption Provisions. The City reserves the right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any interest payment date, in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest payable on that interest payment date on all unpaid Bonds. The City further reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds redeemed or purchased under this section shall be canceled. Section 7. Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 15 nor more than 45 days prior to the date fixed -4- 5010)277.01 for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on Bonds called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed when presented pursuant to the call. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to Dain Rauscher Incorporated at its principal office in Seattle, Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Division Manager of the City shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds. Section 8. Failure to Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds. Section 9. Pledae of Assessment Payments. Assessments collected in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349, together with interest and penalties, if any, are pledged to the payment of the Bonds which are payable solely out of the Bond Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City in the manner provided by law. The Bonds are not general obligations of the City. Section 10. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state -5- 50103273.01 law, shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Kent, Washington, Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance. WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENCY Bond Registrar By Authorized Signer The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated, and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued, and delivered and, when authenticated, issued, and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bond. -6- 50103273.01 Section 11. Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations. The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificates of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners. Section 12. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), is applicable to the Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section -7- 50103273.0I 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon. Section 13. Use of Bond Proceeds. The accrued interest on the Bonds received from the Bond purchaser shall be deposited in the Bond Fund used to pay debt service on the Bonds on the first interest payment date. $1,322,166, being 10% of the principal amount of the Bonds, will be deposited in the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City. The remaining principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to finance the costs of repaying interim financing for Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349 and to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. Until needed to pay those costs, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any legal investment, and the investment earnings may be retained in the respective local improvement district funds or accounts therein and be spent for the purposes of those funds, and earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 14. Deposit of Additional City Funds. An appeal from an assessment in LID No. 340 has been filed with the City Clerk in the total amount of approximately $ . This appeal also has been filed with the King County Superior Court. While the City anticipates that the appeal can be defended successfully, the City shall provide from other available City funds and shall deposit promptly in the Bond Fund the total principal amount by which an assessment may be reduced by court judgment or settlement, together with interest for one year on such amount at the bond rate. Section 15. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Dain Rauscher Incorporated of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the Bond -8- 501072nA1 Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by City officials. The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper& Shefelman PLLC, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds printed on each definitive Bond. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 16. Temporary Bond. Pending the printing, execution and delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may cause to be executed and delivered to the purchaser a single temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the Bonds. The temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest rates, principal payment dates, and terms and covenants as the definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully registered Bond in the name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable to the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for definitive Bonds as soon as they are printed, executed, and available for delivery. Section 17. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The City Council has been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated , 1999 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds. For the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser's compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12(b)(1), the City "deems final" that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, -9- 50103273,01 except for the omission of information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates, ratings, and other terms of the Bonds dependent on such matters. Section 18. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. To meet the requirements of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) (the "Rule"), as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City makes the following written undertaking (the "Undertaking") for the benefit of holders of the Bonds: (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent: (i) To each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule ("NRMSIR") and to a state information depository, if any, established in the State of Washington (the "SID") annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds and described in subsection(b) of this section("annual financial information"); (ii) To each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB"), and to the SID, timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non-payment related defaults; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6)adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (8) Bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds); (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds; and(11)rating changes; and (iii) To each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID, timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date specified in subsection(b)of this section. (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in subsection (a) of this section: (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with applicable -10- 50103273 01 generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board ("GASB"), as such principles may be changed from time to time, which statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (2) a statement of the outstanding balance of obligations secured by the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City at fiscal year end, and the balance of cash and investments (based on market value) in the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund at fiscal year end; (3) the current assessed valuation of the District; (4) a statement of total assessments collected during the preceding fiscal year and the amount of delinquent assessments as of the end of the fiscal year; (ii) Shall be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID, not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 1999; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a"final official statement" with respect to other obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB- (c) Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency,NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule. The City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. The Undertaking evidenced by this section shall inure to the benefit of the City and any holder of Bonds, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertakins. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with 5010327301 federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bands. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking. (g) Designation of Official Respgrisible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance Division Director of the City (or such other officer of the City who may in the future perform the duties of that office) or his or her designee is authorized and directed in his or her discretion to take such further actions,as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of the City in respect of the Bonds set forth in this section and in accordance with the Rule, including, without limitation,the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection (a)has occurred, assessing its materiality with respect to the Bonds, and, if material,preparing and disseminating notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated person"within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of material events for that person in accordance with the Rule; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. Section 19. Fixing Interest Rate on Assessments. The interest rates on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local Improvement Districts Nos. 340 and 349 are revised and fixed at the rate of % per annum. -12- 50103273.01 Section 20. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and five (5) days following its publication as required by law. By JIM WHITE,Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel and Bond Counsel for the City Passed the day of ' 1999. Approved the day of , 1999. Published the day of , 1999. -13- 5010JT7101 FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW [FORM OF APPROVING LEGAL OPINION] City of Kent, Washington Re: City of Kent, Washington, $13,221,661 Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds i l l l THIRD AVENUE .Smile 3400 SEATTLE We have served as bond counsel to the City of Kent, Washington (the Washington "City"), in connection with the issuance of the above-referenced bonds (the 98101-3299 "Bonds"), have examined a certified transcript of proceedings relating to the Bonds Telephone _ and have examined an executed and authenticated Bond or a facsimile thereof. (206) 447-440C Facsimile 06) The following ordinances of the City established the following local 'Webs 447-9700 b {Vebaire improvement districts, respectively: WWW.FOSTER.COM Local Improvement Created By District No. Ordinance No. 340 3404 349 3388 The Bonds are issued pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington and Ordinance ANCHORAGE No. of the City (the 'Bond Ordinance") for the purpose of providing the Alaska funds necessary to pay so much of the cost and expense of improvements ordered by BELLEVUE those ordinances as is levied and assessed against the property included in Washington Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 and benefited by those improvements. The Bonds are payable solely from special assessments levied in the PORTLAND above-referenced local improvement districts and paid into the Consolidated Local Oregon Improvement Fund, District No. 340 and 349 of the City (the "Bond Fund") and from SEATTLE the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City. Washington SPOKANE Washington 50103274.01 City of Kent, Washington [Date] Page 2 The Bonds are dated August 1, 1999, mature on August 1, 2016, are in the denominations, bear interest payable on the dates and at the rates, have such prepayment or redemption provisions and have such other provisions as are set forth in the Bond Ordinance and in the Bonds. We express no opinion herein concerning the completeness or accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other sales or disclosure material relating to the issuance of the Bonds or otherwise used in connection with the Bonds. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), the City is required to comply with certain requirements after the date of issuance of the Bonds in order to maintain the exclusion of the interest on the Bonds from gross income for'federal income tax purposes, including, without limitation, requirements concerning the qualified use of Bond proceeds and the facilities financed or refinanced with Bond proceeds, limitations on investing gross proceeds of the Bonds in higher yielding investments in certain circumstances and the arbitrage rebate requirement to the extent applicable to the Bonds. The City has covenanted in the Bond Ordinance to comply with those requirements, but if the City fails to comply with such requirements, interest on the Bonds could become taxable retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds. We have not undertaken and do not undertake to monitor the City's compliance with such requirements. As of the date of initial delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser thereof and full payment therefor, it is our opinion that: 1. The City is a duly organized and legally existing code city under the laws of the State of Washington; 2. The Bonds are issued in full compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington and the ordinances of the City relating thereto; 3. The Bonds constitute valid obligations of the Bond Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, except only to the extent that enforcement of payment may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws affecting creditors' rights and by the application of equitable principles and the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases; 4. The Bonds are not general obligations of the City; and 5. Assuming compliance by the City after the date of issuance of the Bonds with applicable requirements of the Code, under existing federal law the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income of the registered owners and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals; however, while interest on the 50103274.01 City of Kent, Washington [Date] Page 3 Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Bonds received by corporations is to be taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may be subject to tax, and interest on the Bonds received by foreign corporations with United States branches may be subject to a foreign branch profits tax. We express no opinion regarding any other federal tax consequences of receipt of interest on the Bonds. We bring to your attention the fact that the foregoing opinions are expressions of our professional judgment on the matters expressly addressed and do not constitute guarantees of result. Respectfully submitted. FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC By 50103274.01 DAIN R&SCHER Purchase Contract ^' iNVESTMENT SERVICES ' INVESTMENT BANKING CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON $13,221,661 Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds July 20, 1999 Mayor and City Council City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: The undersigned, Dain Rauscher Incorporated (the "Underwriter"), offers to enter into the following agreement (the "Contract") with the City of Kent, Washington (the "Issuer") which, upon the Issuer's written acceptance of this offer, will be binding upon the Issuer and upon the Underwriter. This offer is made subject to the Issuer's written acceptance hereof on or before 11:59 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time, on July 20, 1999, and, if not so accepted, will be subject to withdrawal by the Underwriter upon notice delivered to the Issuer at any time prior to the acceptance hereof by the Issuer. Terms not otherwise defined in this Contract shall have the same meanings set forth in the Bond Ordinance(as defined herein)or in the Official Statement(as defined herein). 1. Purchase and Sale of the Bonds. Subject to the terms and conditions and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and agreements set forth herein, the Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the Issuer, and the Issuer hereby agrees to sell and deliver to the Underwriter, all, but not less than all, of the Issuer's $13,221,661 Consolidated Local Improvement District No. 340 and 349 Bonds (the "Bonds"). Inasmuch as this purchase and sale represents a negotiated transaction, the Issuer understands, and hereby confirms, that the Underwriter is not acting as a fiduciary of the Issuer, but rather is acting solely in its capacity as Underwriter for its own account. The Underwriter has been duly authorized to execute this Contract and to act hereunder. The principal amount of the Bonds to be issued, the dated date therefor, the maturity date, optional redemption provisions and interest rates per annum are set forth in Schedule I hereto. The Bonds shall be as described in, and shall be issued and secured under and pursuant to the provisions of, Ordinance No. passed by the Issuer on July 20, 1999(the "Bond Ordinance"). The purchase price for the Bonds shall be $ plus interest accrued on the Bonds from the dated date of the Bonds to the date of Closing (as hereinafter defined). There is an underwriting discount of $ ,and expense reimbursement of$ 2. Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public offering of all of the Bonds at a price not to exceed the public offering prices set forth on the cover of the Official Statement and may subsequently change such offering prices without any requirement of prior notice. The Underwriter may offer and sell Bonds to certain dealers (including dealers depositing Bonds into investment trusts) and others at prices lower than the public offering prices stated on the cover of the Official Statement. Suite 2500 (206) 621-3109 Dain Rauscher Incorporated 1201 Third Avenue Fax(206) 621-3151 Member NYSE/SIPC Seattle,WA 98 1 0 1-3044 Toll Free (800)766-3246 3. The Official Statement. (a) Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the Preliminary Official Statement dated July _, 1999 (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), including the cover page and Appendices thereto, of the Issuer relating to the Bonds. Also, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a draft of the final Official Statement, of the Issuer relating to the Bonds,hereinafter called the "Official Statement." (b) The Preliminary Official Statement has been prepared for use in connection with the public offering, sale and distribution of the Bonds by the Underwriter. The Issuer hereby represents and warrants that the Preliminary Official Statement was deemed final by the Issuer as of its date,except for the omission of such information which is dependent upon the final pricing of the Bonds for completion, all as permitted to be excluded by Section (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the "Rule"). The Issuer consents to and ratifies the use by the Underwriter prior to the date hereof of the Preliminary Official Statement in Connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. (c) The Issuer hereby authorizes the Official Statement and the information therein contained to be used by the Underwriter in connection with the public offering and the sale of the Bonds. The Issuer shall cooperate with the Underwriter to permit the Underwriter to provide as soon as practicable after the date of the Issuer's acceptance of this Contract(but, in any event, not later than within seven business days after the Issuer's acceptance of this Contract and in sufficient time to accompany any confirmation that requests payment from any customer) copies of the Official Statement which is complete as of the date of its delivery in such quantity as the Underwriter shall request in order for the Underwriter to comply with Section(b)(4)of the Rule and the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board(the "MSRB (d) If, after the date of this Contract to and including the date the Underwriter is no longer required to provide an Official Statement to potential customers who request the same pursuant to the Rule (the earlier of(i) 90 days from the "end of the underwriting period" (as defined in Rule) and (ii) the time when the Official Statement is available to any person from a nationally recognized municipal securities repository, but in no case less than 25 days after the "end of the underwriting period" for the Bonds), the Issuer becomes aware of any fact or event which might or would cause the Official Statement, as then supplemented or amended, to contain any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, not misleading, or if it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to comply with law, the Issuer will notify the Underwriter (and for the purposes of this clause provide the Underwriter with such information as it may from time to time request), and if, in the opinion of the Underwriter, such fact or event requires preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the Official Statement, the Issuer will cooperate with the Underwriter in the preparation and furnishing, at the Issuer's expense, of a reasonable number of copies of either amendments or supplements to the Official Statement (i) so that the statements in the Official Statement, as so amended and supplemented, will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading and, (ii) so that the Official Statement will comply with law. If such notification shall be subsequent to the Closing, the Issuer shall furnish such legal opinions, certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may deem necessary to evidence the truth and accuracy of such supplement or amendment to the Official Statement. (e) The Underwriter hereby agrees to deliver the required number of copies of the Official Statement to the MSRB and to all nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories. (f) Unless otherwise notified in writing by the Underwriter, the Issuer can assume that the "end of the underwriting period" for purposes of this Contract is the date of the Closing. 4. Representations, Warranties, and Covenants of the Issuer. The Issuer hereby represents and warrants to and covenants with the Underwriter that: 2 (a) The Issuer is a code city and municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the "State") duly created, organized and existing under the laws of the State, specifically Title 35A RCW, as amended and supplemented(the "Act"), and has full legal right,power and authority under the Act, and at the date of the Closing will have full legal right, power and authority under the Act and the Bond Ordinance(i)to levy the assessments and to carry out the improvements within LIDs Nos. 340 and 349 (as defined and described in the Official Statement); (ii) to enter into, execute and deliver this Contract, the Bond Ordinance, and the Letter of Representations (referred to, collectively, as the "Issuer Documents"); (iii) to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by the Issuer Documents; (iv) to approve and execute the Official Statement; and (v) to sell, issue and deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter as provided herein, and the Issuer has complied, and will at the Closing be in compliance in all respects, with the terms of the Act and the Issuer Documents as they pertain to such transactions; (b) By all necessary official action of the Issuer prior to or concurrently with the acceptance hereof, the Issuer has duly authorized all necessary action to be taken by it for(i) the passage of the Bond Ordinance and the issuance and sale of the Bonds, (ii) the approval, execution and delivery of the Bonds, the Issuer Documents and the Official Statement, and the performance by the Issuer of the obligations on its part, contained in the Bonds and the Issuer Documents, and (iii) the consummation by it of all other transactions contemplated by the Issuer Documents and any and all such other agreements and documents as may be required to be executed, delivered and/or received by the Issuer in order to carry out, give effect to,and consummate the transactions contemplated herein and in the Official Statement; (c) The Issuer Documents constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Issuer, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws and principles of equity relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights, and the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases; and the Bonds, when issued, delivered and paid for, in accordance with the Bond Ordinance and this Contract, will constitute legal, valid and binding special fund obligations of the Issuer entitled to the benefits of the Bond Ordinance and enforceable in accordance with their terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws and principles of equity relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights, and the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases; and upon the issuance, authentication and delivery of the Bonds as aforesaid, the Bond Ordinance will provide, for the benefit of the owners and holders, from time to time, of the Bonds, the legally valid and binding pledge it purports to create as set forth in the Bond Ordinance; (d) The execution and delivery of the Bonds, the Issuer Documents and the passage of the Bond Ordinance and compliance with the provisions on the Issuer's part contained therein, will not conflict with or constitute a breach of or default under any constitutional provision, administrative regulation, judgment, decree, loan agreement, indenture, bond, note, ordinance, agreement or other instrument to which the Issuer is a party or to which the Issuer is or to which any of its property or assets are otherwise subject, nor will any such execution, delivery, passage or compliance result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or other security interest or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of the Issuer to be pledged to secure the Bonds or under the terms of any such law, regulation or instrument,except as provided by the Bonds and the Bond Ordinance; (e) All authorizations, approvals, licenses, permits, consents and orders of any governmental authority, legislative body, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction of the matter which are required for the due authorization of, which would constitute a condition precedent to, or the absence of which would materially adversely affect the due performance by the Issuer of its obligations under the Issuer Documents and the Bonds have been duly obtained, except for such approvals, consents and orders as may be required under the Blue Sky or securities laws of any jurisdiction in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds; 3 (f) There is no legislation, action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, government agency, public board or body, pending or, to the best knowledge of the Issuer after due inquiry,threatened against the Issuer,affecting the existence of the Issuer or the titles of its officers to their respective offices, or affecting or seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the sale, issuance or delivery of the Bonds or the collection of the LIDS Nos. 340 and 349 assessments or in any way contesting or affecting the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the Issuer Documents, or contesting the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes, or contesting in any way the completeness or accuracy of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement or any supplement or amendment thereto, or contesting the powers of the Issuer or any authority for the issuance of the Bonds, the passage of the Bond Ordinance or the execution and delivery of the Issuer Documents, nor, to the best knowledge of the Issuer, is there any basis therefor, wherein an unfavorable decision, ruling or finding would materially adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the Issuer Documents; (g) As of the date thereof, the Preliminary Official Statement did not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (h) At the time of the Issuer's acceptance hereof and (unless the Official Statement is amended or supplemented pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 3 of this Contract) at all times subsequent thereto during the period up to and including the date of Closing, the Official Statement does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,not misleading; (i) If the Official Statement is supplemented or amended pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 3 of this Contract, at the time of each supplement or amendment thereto and (unless subsequently again supplemented or amended pursuant to such paragraph) at all times subsequent thereto during the period up to and including the date of Closing, the Official Statement as so supplemented or amended will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which made, not misleading; 0) The Issuer will apply, or cause to be applied, the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds as provided in and subject to all of the terms and provisions of the Bond Ordinance, or as otherwise permitted under State law and other ordinances and resolutions of the City, (k) The Issuer will not take or omit to take any action which action or omission will adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds; (1) The Issuer will furnish such information and execute such instruments and take such action in cooperation with the Underwriter as the Underwriter may reasonably request(i)to(A) qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions in the United States as the Underwriter may designate and (B) determine the eligibility of the Bonds for investment under the laws of such states and other jurisdictions and(ii) to continue such qualifications in effect so long as required for the distribution of the Bonds (provided, however, that the Issuer will not be required to qualify as a foreign corporation or to file any general or special consents to service of process under the laws of any jurisdiction or to pay any fees or expenses incurred in connection with such qualification for sale)and will advise the Underwriter immediately of receipt by the Issuer of any notification with respect to the suspension of the qualification of the Bonds for sale in any jurisdiction or the initiation or threat of any proceeding for that purpose; 4 (m) The financial statements of, and other financial information regarding the Issuer, in the Official Statement fairly present the financial position and results of the Issuer as of the dates and for the periods therein set forth. Between the date hereof and the date of Closing, there will be no adverse change of a material nature in such financial position, results of operations or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Issuer, except as disclosed to the Purchaser and, if applicable, set forth in a supplement to the Official Statement pursuant to Section 3(d)hereof: (n) Prior to the Closing, the Issuer will not offer or issue any bonds, notes or other obligations for borrowed money or incur any material liabilities, direct or contingent, payable from or secured by any of the revenues which will secure the Bonds without the prior approval of the Underwriter; and (o) Any certificate, signed by any official of the Issuer authorized to do so in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Contract, shall be deemed a representation and warranty by the Issuer to the Underwriter as to the statements made therein. 5. Closing. (a) At 9:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time, on August 5, 1999, or at such other time and date as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Issuer and the Underwriter (the "Closing"), the Issuer will, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, deliver the Bonds to the Underwriter duly executed and authenticated, together with the other documents hereinafter mentioned, and the Underwriter will, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, accept such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth in Section 1 of this Contract by wire transfer payable in immediately available funds to the Issuer. Closing of the Bonds as aforesaid shall take place at the offices of Foster Pepper& Shefelman PLLC, Seattle, Washington("Bond Counsel"), or such other place as shall have been mutually agreed upon by the Issuer and the Underwriter. (b) Delivery of the Bonds shall be made to NSCC NY Window (the "Clearing Agent"),New York,New York. The Bonds shall be delivered in definitive fully registered form, without coupons, all as provided in the Bond Ordinance, and such Bonds shall be made available at the Clearing Agent to the Underwriter at least one business day before the Closing for purposes of inspection. (c) The Underwriter will prepare a State Bond Form 101 for filing pursuant to RCW 39.44.210-.220 and shall deliver a copy of the same, together with evidence of filing, on the date of Closing to the Issuer. 6. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Contract in reliance upon the representations, warranties and agreements of the Issuer contained herein, and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and agreements to be contained in the documents and instruments to be delivered at the Closing and upon the performance by the Issuer of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as of the date of the Closing. Accordingly, the Underwriter's obligations under this Contract to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds shall be conditioned upon the performance by the Issuer of its obligations to be performed hereunder and under such documents and instruments at or prior to the Closing, and shall also be subject to the following additional conditions, including the delivery by the Issuer of such documents as are enumerated herein, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Underwriter: (a) The representations and warranties of the Issuer contained herein shall be true, complete and correct on the date hereof and on and as of the date of the Closing, as if made on the date of the Closing; (b) The Issuer shall have performed and complied with all agreements and conditions required by this Contract to be performed or complied with by it prior to or at the Closing; 5 (c) At the time of the Closing, (i)the Issuer Documents and the Bonds shall be in full force and effect in the form heretofore approved by the Underwriter and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented, and the Official Statement shall not have been supplemented or amended, except in any such case as may have been agreed to by the Underwriter; and (ii) all actions of the Issuer required to be taken by the Issuer shall be performed in order for Bond Counsel and Joni H. Ostergaard, Esq., Seattle, Washington("counsel for the Underwriter")to deliver their respective opinions referred to hereafter; (d) At the time of the Closing, all official action of the Issuer relating to the Bonds and the Issuer Documents shall be in full force and effect and shall not have been amended, modified or supplemented; (e) At or prior to the Closing, the Bond Ordinance shall have been duly executed, delivered and published by the Issuer and the Issuer shall have duly executed and delivered, and the Registrar shall have duly authenticated, the Bonds; (f) Other than as disclosed in the Official Statement the Issuer shall not have failed to pay principal or interest when due on any of its outstanding obligations for borrowed money; (g) Ail steps to be taken and all instruments and other documents to be executed, and all other legal matters in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Contract, shall be reasonably satisfactory in legal form and effect to the Underwriter; (h) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall have received copies of each of the following documents: (1) The Official Statement, and each supplement or amendment thereto, if any, executed on behalf of the Issuer by the Mayor, or such other official as may have been agreed to by the Underwriter,and the reports and audits referred to or appearing in the Official Statement; (2) A certified copy of the Bond Ordinance, including the Undertaking of the Issuer satisfying the requirements of section (b)(5)(i) of the Rule contained therein, with such supplements or amendments as may have been agreed to by the Underwriter; (3) An affidavit evidencing publication of the Bond Ordinance as required by law and at least five days prior to the date of Closing; (4) The approving opinion of Bond Counsel with respect to the Bonds, in substantially the form attached as Appendix A to the Official Statement; (5) A supplemental opinion of Bond Counsel, dated the date of Closing and addressed to the Underwriter,substantially to the effect that: (i) The Bond Ordinance has been duly passed by the Issuer and is in full force and effect. (ii) The Bonds are exempted securities under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended(the "1933 Act"), and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended(the "Trust Indenture Act"), and it is not necessary, in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, to register the Bonds under the 1933 Act or to qualify the Bond Ordinance under the Trust Indenture Act; 6 (iii) To the extent that the sections entitled "DESCRIPTION OF THE r._ BONDS," "SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT FOR THE BONDS" and "CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING" purport to summarize portions of the Bonds, the Bond Ordinance and the authority for the issuance of the Bonds„ and to the extent that the sections entitled "TAX EXEMPTION" and "CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL TAX CONSEQUENCES" purport to describe certain federal income tax consequences of ownership of the Bonds, such sections provide a fair and accurate summary of the subjects contained therein and in each case the statements of law and legal conclusions relating thereto are correct; (iv) This Contract and Letter of Representations have been duly authorized, executed and delivered by, and each constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement and obligation of, the Issuer enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency,reorganization,moratorium and other similar laws and principles of equity relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors' rights and the exercise of judicial discretion; (v) The Underwriter may rely upon the approving opinion of Bond Counsel as if it were addressed to the Underwriter; and (vi) Bond Counsel consents to the references to it contained in the Official Statement. (6) An opinion, dated the date of the Closing and addressed to the Underwriter, of counsel for the Underwriter,to the effect that: (i) The Bonds are exempt securities under the 1933 Act and the Trust Indenture Act and it is not necessary, in connection with the offering and sale of the Bonds, to register the Bonds under the 1933 Act or to qualify the Bond Ordinance under the Trust Indenture Act; (ii) Based upon her reading of the Official Statement as counsel for the Underwriter, such counsel has no reason to believe that the Official Statement contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (except for any financial, forecast, technical and statistical statements and data included in the Official Statement, in each case as to which no view need be expressed);and (iii) Counsel for the Underwriter consents to the reference to her contained in the Official Statement. (7) A certificate, dated the date of Closing, of the Issuer to the effect that (i) the representations and warranties of the Issuer contained herein are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the date of Closing as if made on the date of Closing; (ii) no litigation or proceeding against it is pending or, to its knowledge, threatened in any court or administrative body nor, to its knowledge, is there a basis for litigation which would (a) contest the right of the officers or officials of the Issuer to hold and exercise their respective positions, (b)contest the due organization and valid existence of the Issuer, (c) contest the validity, due authorization and execution of the Bonds or the Issuer Documents or (d) except as described in the Official Statement, attempt to limit, enjoin or otherwise restrict or prevent the Issuer from functioning and 7 collecting LID assessments, including assessments and other money to be applied to make payments on the Bonds, pursuant to the Bond Ordinance; (iii) the Bond Ordinance has been duly passed by the Issuer, is in full force and effect and has not been modified, amended or repealed; (iv) there have been no material adverse changes in the operations or financial condition of the Issuer relative to the sources of assessments or the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the Issuer pledged as security for the Bonds nor in the general economy of the Issuer except as described in the Official Statement; and (v) to the best of its knowledge and belief after due review, no event affecting the Issuer has occurred since the date of the Official Statement which should be disclosed in the Official Statement for the purpose for which it is to be used or which it is necessary to disclose therein in order to make the statements and information therein, in light of the circumstances under which made, not misleading in any respect as of the time of Closing, and the information contained in the Official Statement is correct in all material respects and, as of the date of the Official Statement did not, and as of the date of the Closing does not, contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (vi) all authorizations, approvals, licenses, permits, consents and orders of any governmental authority, legislative body, board, agency or commission having jurisdiction of the matter which are required for the due authorization of, which would constitute a condition precedent to, or the absence of which would materially adversely affect the due performance by the Issuer of its obligations under the Issuer Documents and the Bonds have been obtained; (8) A certificate of the Issuer in form and substance satisfactory to Bond Counsel and counsel to the Underwriter(a)setting forth the facts, estimates and circumstances in existence on the date of the Closing which form the basis for the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and any applicable regulations (whether final, temporary or proposed), issued pursuant to the Code, and (b) certifying that the Issuer has not been notified of any listing or proposed listing of it by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon; (9) Any other certificates and opinions required by the Bond Ordinance for the issuance thereunder of the Bonds; (10) Such additional legal opinions, certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter or counsel for the Underwriter may reasonably request to evidence the truth and accuracy, as of the date hereof and as of the date of the Closing, of the Issuer's representations and warranties contained herein and of the statements and information contained in the Official Statement and the due performance or satisfaction by the Issuer on or prior to the date of the Closing of all the respective agreements then to be performed and conditions then to be satisfied by the Issuer. All of the opinions, letters, certificates, instruments and other documents mentioned above or elsewhere in this Contract shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions hereof if, but only if, they are in form and substance satisfactory to the Underwriter. If the Issuer shall be unable to satisfy the conditions to the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds contained in this Contract, or if the obligations of the Underwriter to purchase, to accept delivery of and to pay for the Bonds shall be terminated for any reason permitted by this Contract, this Contract shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the Issuer shall be under any further obligation hereunder, except that the respective obligations of the Issuer and the Underwriter set forth in Section 8 hereof shall continue in full force and effect. 8 7. Termination. The Underwriter shall have the right to cancel its obligation to purchase the Bonds if, between the date of this Contract and the Closing, the market price or marketability of the Bonds shall be materially adversely affected, in the sole judgment of the Underwriter,by the occurrence of any of the following: (a) legislation shall be enacted by or introduced in the Congress of the United States or recommended to the Congress for passage by the President of the United States, or the Treasury Department of the United States or the Internal Revenue Service or any member of the Congress or favorably reported for passage to either House of the Congress by any committee of such House to which such legislation has been referred for consideration, a decision by a court of the United States or of the State or the United States Tax Court shall be rendered, or an order, ruling,regulation (final, temporary or proposed), press release, statement or other form of notice by or on behalf of the Treasury Department of the United States, the Internal Revenue Service or other governmental agency shall be made or proposed, the effect of any or all of which would be to impose, directly or indirectly, federal income taxation upon taxes or other income to be derived by the Issuer pursuant to the Bond Ordinance,or upon interest received on obligations of the general character of the Bonds as described in the Official Statement, or other action or events shall have transpired which may have the purpose or effect, directly or indirectly, of changing the federal income tax consequences of any of the transactions contemplated herein; (b) legislation introduced in or enacted (or ordinance passed) by the Congress or an order, decree, or injunction issued by any court of competent jurisdiction, or an order, ruling, regulation (final, temporary, or proposed), press release or other form of notice issued or made by or on behalf of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other governmental agency having jurisdiction of the subject matter, to the effect that obligations of the general character of the Bonds, including any or all underlying arrangements, are not exempt from registration under or other requirements of the 1933 Act, or that the Bond Ordinance is not exempt from qualification under or other requirements of the Trust Indenture Act, or that the issuance, offering, or sale of obligations of the general character of the Bonds, including any or all underlying arrangements, as contemplated hereby or by the Official Statement or otherwise, is or would be in violation of the federal securities law as amended and then in effect; (c) a general suspension of trading in securities on the New York Stock Exchange or the American Stock Exchange, the establishment of minimum prices on either such exchange, the establishment of material restrictions (not in force as of the date hereof) upon trading securities generally by any governmental authority or any national securities exchange, a general banking moratorium declared by federal, State of New York, or State officials authorized to do so; (d) the New York Stock Exchange or other national securities exchange or any governmental authority, shall impose, as to the Bonds or as to obligations of the general character of the Bonds, any material restrictions not now in force, or increase materially those now in force, with respect to the extension of credit by,or the charge to the net capital requirements of, underwriters; (e) any amendment to the federal or State Constitution or action by any federal or State court, legislative body, regulatory body, or other authority materially adversely affecting the tax status of the Issuer, its property, income, securities (or interest thereon), or the validity or enforceability of the collection of revenues pledged to the payment of the Bonds; (f) any event occurring, or information becoming known which, in the judgment of the Underwriter, makes untrue in any material respect any statement or information contained in the Official Statement, as supplemented or amended, or has the effect that the Official Statement, as supplemented or amended, contains any untrue statement of material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; 9 (g) there shall have occurred since the date of this Contract any materially adverse change in the affairs or financial condition of the Issuer or any other fact or event shall exist or have existed that, in the Underwriter's judgment, requires or has required an amendment of or supplement to the Official Statement, and the City shall not have cooperated with the Underwriter in preparing such supplement or amendment pursuant to Section 3(d)of this Contract, (h) the United States shall have become engaged in hostilities which have resulted in a declaration of war or a national emergency or there shall have occurred any other outbreak or escalation of hostilities or a national or international calamity or crisis, financial or otherwise; (i) the purchase of and payment for the Bonds by the Underwriter,or the resale of the Bonds by the Underwriter, on the terms and conditions herein provided shall be prohibited by any applicable law, governmental authority,board,agency or commission. 8. Expenses. (a) The Underwriter shall be under no obligation to pay, and the Issuer shall pay, any expenses incident to the performance of the Issuer's obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to (i)the cost of preparation, printing and registration of the Bonds, (ii) the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel; (iii)the fees and disbursements of other experts, consultants or advisers retained by the Issuer; and (iv) any other expenses not specifically enumerated herein incurred by the Issuer in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. (b) The Underwriter shall pay(i)the cost of preparation and printing of this Contract and the Blue Sky Survey and Legal Investment Memorandum, if any; (ii) all advertising expenses in connection with the public offering of the Bonds; (iii) Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement printing costs; and (iv) all other expenses incurred by it in connection with the public offering of the Bonds, including the fees and disbursements of counsel for the Underwriter. The Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement printing costs as well as fees and disbursements of counsel for the Underwriter are being paid from Bond proceeds. (c) If this Contract shall be terminated by the Underwriter because of any failure or refusal on the part of the Issuer to comply with the terms or to fulfill any of the conditions of this Contract, or if for any reason the Issuer shall be unable to perform its obligations under this Contract, the Issuer will reimburse the Underwriter for all out-of-pocket expenses (including the fees and disbursements of counsel for the Underwriter) reasonably incurred by the Underwriter in connection with this Contract or the offering contemplated hereunder. 9. Notices. Any notice or other communication to be given to the Issuer under this Contract may be given by delivering the same in writing to City of Kent, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032-5895, and any notice or other communication to be given to the Underwriter under this Contract may be given by delivering the same in writing to Dain Rauscher Incorporated, Public Finance Department, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2500, Seattle, Washington 98101,Attention: Dave Trageser, Vice President. 10. Parties in Interest. This Contract as heretofore specified shall constitute the entire agreement between us and is made solely for the benefit of the Issuer and the Underwriter (including successors or assigns of the Underwriter) and no other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder or by virtue hereof. This Contract may not be assigned by the Issuer. All of the Issuer's representations, warranties and agreements contained in this Contract shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of(i)any investigations made by or on behalf of any of the Underwriter; (ii) delivery of and payment for the Bonds pursuant to this Contract; and (iii) any termination of this Contract. 11. Effectiveness. This Contract shall become effective upon the acceptance hereof by the Issuer and shall be valid and enforceable at the time of such acceptance. 10 12. Choice of Law. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State. 13. Severability. If any provision of this Contract shall be held or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be invalid, inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particular case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions, or in all jurisdictions because it conflicts with any provisions of any Constitution, statute, rule of public policy, or any other reason, such circumstances shall not have the effect of rendering the provision in question invalid, inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance, or of rendering any other provision or provisions of this Contract invalid, inoperative or unenforceable to any extent whatever. 14. Business Day. For purposes of this Contract, "business day" means any day on which the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading. 15. Section Headings. Section headings have been inserted in this Contract as a matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part of this Contract and will not be used in the interpretation of any provisions of this Contract. 16. Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in several counterparts each of which shall be regarded as an original (with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same document) and all of which shall constitute one and the same document. 17. Amendment. This Contract may be modified, supplemented or amended only by an instrument in writing executed by both parties hereto. If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the enclosed counterpart of this Contract and return it to the Underwriter. This Contract shall become a binding agreement between you and the Underwriter when at least one counterpart of this letter shall have been signed by or on behalf of each of the parties hereto. Very truly yours, DAIN RAUSCHER INCORPORATED By Dave Trageser Vice President Accepted and agreed to this 20th day of July, 1999: CITY OF KENT, WASHrNGTON By Jim White Mayor 11 SCHEDULEI CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON $13,221,661 Consolidated Local Improvement District No.340 and 349 Bonds Dated Date: August 1, 1999 Interest Payments: August I of each year, beginning August 1,2000 to maturity or earlier redemption. Maturity: August 1,2016 Optional Redemption: The Bonds are callable in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption on any interest payment date commencing August 1,2000 as provided in the Bond Ordinance. Description: PRICING SUMMARY EST.REDEMPTION BOND MATURITY DOLLAR AUGUST 1 NUMBER COUPON YIELD VALUE PRICE PRICE 2000 1-177 2001 178-354 2002 355-531 2003 532-708 2004 709-885 2005 886-1062 2006 1063-1240 2007 1241-1418 2008 1419-1596 2009 1597-1774 2010 1775-1948 2011 1949-2122 2012 2123-2296 2013 2297-2470 2014 2471-2644 BOND INFORMATION Par Amount of Bonds Less Underwriter's Discount Less POS/OS and Underwriter's Counsel Costs Plus Accrued Interest from 8/01/1999 to 8/5/1999 Total Purchase Price Average Life Average Coupon Net Interest Cost(NIC) True Interest Cost(TIC) Anticipated Closing Date and Time: August 5, 1999, 9:00 a.m. PDT Offer Expires: July 20, 1999, 1 1:59 p.m. PDT EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT (TO COME) Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GRANT FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign both the Certification and Assurances Document and the Distribution Agreement as proposed. King County was awarded $499, 650 by the U. S . Department of Justice under the State and Local Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program Project . The purpose of the grant funding was to purchase and distribute a limited amount of personal protective, chemical and biological and radiological detection and decontamination equipment to some local response agencies . The King County Office of Emergency Management has been designed Grant Manager for this project . The equipment that is provided to our agency is considered part of the mutual aid resources available under the mutual aid agreements already in place among fire, EMS, hazardous materials service providers and law enforcement . 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Shadric T. Burcham, Grant Administrator; list of distributed equipment; Certification and Assurances Document ; and Distribution Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief Angelo & Public Safety Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H JUL.14.1999 9:36AM KENT FIRE DEPT N0.581 P. 1/8 -- II Tang County Office of Emergency Management Emergency Management DiAsion Department of InfDrmstion and Admmietrative 5endces 7300 Perimeter Road South,Room 128 Seattle,WA 381083848 I. (206)396-3830 i I N May 21, 1999 i, The Honorable Jim White Mayor City of Kent 220 4d'Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Dear Sir: On September 18, 1998 I{ing County was,,awarded$499,650 by the U.S. Department of Justice _ under the State and Local Domestic Preparedness Equipment Support Program Project. King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), has been designated Grant Manager for this project, and has been working closely with the response community to effectively make use of this resource. The purpose of the grant fielding was to purchase and distribute personal protective, chemical, biological, and radiological detection, and decontamination equipment to local response agencies. This equipment will provide law enforcement,fire and emergency medical services with the proper equipment to respond to terrorist incidents involving Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD). Realistically, successful response to a terrorist incident may require mutual aid resources from all WMD equipment recipient agencies in King County. This equipment is considered part of the mutual aid resources available under the mutual aid agreements already in place among law enforcement, fire, EMS, and hazardous materials service providers. King County is pleased to distribute the items described in the enclosed list to your jurisdiction. The decisions on WNID equipment types and distribution were made by a multi-disciplinary team composed of representatives of King County's police and fire chiefs associations, hazardous materials response team providers, emergency medical services (EMS), and the Seattle Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI). Population, geography,potential targets and hazardous materials response capabilities were included in the decision making process. As a recipient of federal funding, King County made certain assurances to the U.S. Department of Justice in the grant application. Some of the assurances must flow down to your jurisdiction as well. Specifically, non-discrimination aid lobbying requirements require certifications by i 1 JUL.14.1999 9 36AM KENT FIRE DEPT I N0.561 P.2i8 sub-recipients of the funding under this I ant. The required certifications are enclosed with this letter (pages 4-5). The federal funding also places propertyl managementresponsibility on King County and its subrecipients. A copy of the minimum requirements for property management is also included with this letter(Attachment 1). Finally, King County is acting as a pass through agency for the purchase and distribution of the equipment purchased with the grant funds. Once the equipment is delivered to your jurisdiction or agency, it becomes your responsibility,for maintenance and storage. Although Congress has appropriated significant funding for this type of equipment,this grant does not mandate that your jurisdiction,purchase replacement equipment. Enclosed is a document(page 3)that lists the equipment that will be transferred to your jurisdiction. Where documents require signatures, (pages 5 and 7),please sign and return to me at King County OEM, 7300 Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108-3848. Thank you for your attention to these details. Please call me 4t 206-205-8106 if you have questions. i Sincerely, ShadrikBu�rchaxn­ Grant Administrator I Attachment I cc; Norm Angelo, Chief, City of Kent Fire Department i i j� I i I 2 • JUL.14.1999 9:36AM KENT FIRE DEPT N0.561 P.3/8 Name of Jurisdiction or Agency: City of Kent Contact Person: Fire Chief Norm Angelo EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTED FROM KING COUNTY G� TO (City of Kent) i EQUIPMENT QUANTITY APD 2000 Chemical Detector I ea. Dragger Chemical Detector 2 ea M256A1 Chemical Detector& Trainer 1 ea Smart Ticket Biological Agent Detector Kit 1 ea Ludlum Radiological Detector 2 ea -- Escape Masks (60-law; 27-fire) 87 ea Chem Tape (rolls) 18 ea I B/C Suits j 27 ea SWAT B Suit 13 ea SWAT Boots 13 pr 3 JUL. 14.1999 9:36AM KENT FIRE DEPT N0.5el P.4/e - CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES O O As a sub-recipient of equipment purchased with federal funds under the STATE AND LOC 21��> DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMEN SUPPORT PROGRAM project,Award Number 98-TE-CX-0016, (City of Kent)makes the following certifications and assurances: 1. OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL,AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968: It will comply with the applicable provisions�f Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or the Victims of Crime Act, as appropriate; the provisions of the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants, M7100.1; and all other applicable Federal laws, orders, circulars, or regulations. I 2. CIIYU RIGHTS: It will comply with f he nondiscrimination requirements of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Stree#s Act of 1968, as amended, 42 USC 3789(d), or Victims of Crime Act(as appropriate); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; Subtitle A, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) (1990); Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Department of Justice Non- Discrimination Regulations, 28 CFR Part 42, Subparts C,D, E, and G; and Department of Justice regulations on disability discrimination, 28 CFR Part 35 and Part 39. 3. LOBBYING: (Required for funding over$100,000) As required by Section 1352 of the U.S. Code, and implemented at,28 CFR Part 69, for persons entering into a grant or cooperative agreement over$100,000, as defined at 28 CFR Part 69,the applicant certifies that: (a) No Federal appropriated fluids have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any!person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee;of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress„or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making of any Federal grant, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement; (b) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal grant or cooperative;igre�ment,the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form—LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. 4 JUL.14.1999 9:37AM KENT FIRE DEPT N0.581 P.5i8 (c) The undersigned 11 require that the Ianguage of this certificav � included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, contracts under'grants and cooperative agreements,and subcontracts) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Authorized Signature i Title I City of Kent I I Date i i II i 5 JUL.14.1999 9:37AM KENT FIRS DEPT r N0.5E1 DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT o 0 This Contract is entered into by KING COUNTY(County) and City of Kent(Agency), who e address is 220 4"Ave South, Kent WA 9803i The County is undertaking certain activities related to the STATE AND LOCAL DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM Project as funded by the U.S. Department of Justice under Grant Award Number 98-TE•CX-0016. Under the terms and conditions of Grant Award Number 98- TE-CX-0016, the County will be distributing specialized emergency response equipment to the City of Kent. The distribution of the equipment is subject to the following terms and conditions. 1. The Equipment delivered to Agency is as described in the enclosed attachment. 2. The Equipment delivered to Agency is accepted "as is"by the Agency with the understanding that King County disclaims all responsibility for all warranties for the delivered equipment. King County wily provide all warranty repair information to Agency. The receiving agency will be responsible for coordinating necessary warrant work with the respective vendor. 3. The Agency is responsible for all training related to the proper use, care and maintenance of the delivered equipment. 4. The County assumes no responsibility fir the use, care or maintenance of the delivered equipment by Agency, Agency shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the County, its officers, employees and agents from any and all costs, claims,judgments and/or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the Agency, its officers,;employees, and/or agents. The Agency agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any pf its employees, or agents. For this purpose, the Agency, by mutual negotiation,hereby waives, as respects the County only, any immunity that would otherwise be avail4 le against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event the County incurs attorney fees and/or costs in the defense of claims, for damages within the scope of this section, such fees and costs shall be recoverable from the Agency. In addition County shall be entitled to recover from the Agency,fees, and costs incurred to enforce the provisions of this section. Claims shall include, but not be limited to, assertions that the use or transfer of any software, book, document,report,film, tape, or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an Xnfringement of any copyright, patent, trademark,trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. i i i 6 JUL.14.1999 9:VAM KENT FIRE DEPT I N0.581 P.7i8 f • I 1. Agency shall comply with the egiipment management requirements of Gr Number 98-TE-CX-0016, (Attachment 1 gages 49-50 of US Department of Jus O "Financial Guide" Part III, Chapter 6 dated April, 1996)copy attached an incorpora by reference as if fully stated herein. Authorized Signature Authorized Signature i Title Title i City of Kent(Agency) King County Date Date 7 NO.5el 3UL.14.1999 9:37AM KEN7 FIRE DEPT �I . 3. Mana;ement. ; a. A State shall manage equipment acquired under an award by the State, in accordance with State laws and procedures. b. Other goverment recipient and subrecipient procedures for managing equipment (including replacement),whether acquired in whole or in part with project funds, will, at a mirdmum, meet the following requirements: (1) Property records mint be maintained which include: (a) Description of,the property; i • (b) Serial ^umber or other identification number; (c) Source of the property; (d) identification of who holds the title; (e) Acquisition date; (f) Cost of the property; (g) Percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property; (h) Location ofproperty; (i) Use and condition of the prope-ry; and (j) Disposi*.ion data including&e date of disposal and sale price. April 1996: Part III:Chapter 6 49 • I `7?a tyro EPT Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DONATION TO POLICE VOLUNTEERS - ACCEPT & AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Establishment of a special project account for the Police Volunteers and acceptance of a donation from the Kent Rotary Club in the amount of $3 , 273 , as recommended by the Public Safety Committee . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memos of July 7, 1999 and copy of check 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety 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. 6I Memorandum To: Public Safety Committee CC: Jackie Bicknell From: Lt. Woods Date: 07/07/99 Re: Request for approval of Special VIPS accounting project. The police department is seeking approval to establish separate project account for the Police Volunteers. The project will receive contributions made to the Volunteers in Police Services. The funds are for expenditures directly related to the volunteers and the volunteer programs. The finance department has given their approval to set up an N44-special project account to receive a S3.273 donation from the Dent Rotary Club. With your approval, the police department would like permission to present this request for approval of the full council. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, '� Lt. Glenn P. Woods 1 Memorandum To: Public Safety Committee CC: Jackie Bicknell From: Lt. Woods Date: 07/07/99 Re: Acceptance of donation. The police department will be presenting to the Public Safety Committee and requesting approval to present to the full council a donation of 53,2 73 from the Kent Rotary Club. The department's Volunteers in Police Service raised the money. On May 8, over a dozen volunteers and several police department employees attended the Rotary Club's annual auction. The Rotary Club arranged to give back in the form of a donation.half of the money raised by any group that prepurchased a table for the auction. The volunteers had purchased two tables. The donation of 53,273 is half of the total amount of money raised by the volunteers during the auction. The Rotan, Club will apply the other half of the money to support local community projects. The citizen volunteers of the police department raised this money. We believe that this money should go toward supporting and improving the volunteer program as the volunteers and the volunteer coordinator, Ms. Susan Hill deems necessan,. I would like to thank you for vour consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, / Lt. Glenn P. Woods 1 � y r " Nh N N o I N Z - J J. Q- 15 LM I i yl II 1=- I ILO L ru LnJII' ru rLj < ru 0 I ru C � � � d Z LLJ i Y d i 9�L6C t> - " Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: STONE WOOD FINAL PLAT FSU-97-13 - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the staff ' s recommendation of approval with conditions of the Stone Wood Final Plat and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This final plat application was submitted by Jim Merritt of H&M Building and Development for the Stone Wood Final Plat . The City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on July 13 , 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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J CITY OF Jim White, Mayor •M V IOTA Planning Department (253) 856-5454 Fax (253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM July 20, 1999 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: STONE WOOD FINAL PLAT #FSU-97-13 On July 21, 1999, the Kent City Council approved the Hearing Examiner's recommended approval of Stone Wood Preliminary Plat (#SU-97-13), a 4.99 acre, 17-1ot residential plat. The property is located east of 961h Avenue S. in Kent, Washington. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Stone Wood Final Plat #FSU-97-13 with the attached conditions and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. JPH\mjp\fsu9713cc.doc Enclosure cc: Fred S. Satterstrom, Planning Manager 22011h AVENUE SOUTH-,'-KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Stone Wood 4SU-97-13 & 4V-98-4 CONCLUSIONS 1. The application for approval of a preliminary plat, with conditions, meets the criteria for approval as established by the Revised Code of Washington and the City of Kent Council. The application should be approved subject to conditions to address stormwater drainage, street improvements, protection of existing trees, water flow for fire protection and mass transit opportunities for residents. Findings of Fact No. 1- 15. 2. The application for approval of a variance to allow a reduction in ten feet in the setback from the top of a ravine should be approved, subject to conditions. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure an accurate topographic survey and compliance with conditions of environmental review. Findings of Fact No. 12, 15. RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION Preliminary Plat & Variance Application Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearings Examiner is recommending APPROVAL of the application for a preliminary plat. Further, the Hearings Examiner is issuing a decision of APPROVAL of the variance to reduce by ten feet the setback from the top of a ravine, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE STONE WOOD SUBDIVISION 4SU-97-13: A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required by the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the STONE WOOD Subdivision (#ENV-98-18). B. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE SUBDIVISION: 1. The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval from the Department of Public Works for engineering drawings, and either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The sewer system shall be extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to serve all off-site properties within the same service area including areas to the 1 7 Hearing Examiner Findings and (recommendation Stone Wood 9SU-97-13 & 9V-98-4 south of the subject parcel. The Owner/Subdivider shall obtain an off-site public sanitary sewer easement along a City-approved alignment. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. C. Detailed Drainage Plans which show how the 100-year post-developed stormwater runoff from this development will be collected, conveyed, stored, treated, and released to the City's stormwater drainage system in compliance with the Kent Construction Standards. (1) The Owner/Subdivider shall construct an on-site detention/ retention pond system in accordance with the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quantity. The maximum interior slopes of the pond shall not exceed 3:1 unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. The detentionlretention storage volume and release criteria shall be that for the HILLS; the pre-development condition shall be assumed to be forest only unless otherwise determined by the Director. NOTE: The HPA required below could supersede the City of Kent release criteria if the HPA-required discharge rate is less than required by the City's HILLS standard. (2) 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. An open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system 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. e. Street Improvement Plans for the plat road terminating with a cul-de-sac at its east terminus. This plat street shall be in conformance to the requirements 8 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Stone Wood 9SU-97-13 & 9V-98-4 for a Residential Street as contained in the City of Kent Construction Standards, including but not limited to: 5-foot cement concrete sidewalks on both sides; at least 32 feet of paved street section from face of curb to face of curb; a City-approved street lighting system; public stonnwater conveyance, detention/retention and treatment facilities; and a minimum right-of-way width of 49 feet, except at the cul-de-sac where the minimum right-of-way radius includes a 3-foot-wide utility strip (which may be provided within an easement as stipulated in the SEPA DNS) behind the back of sidewalk, and at 96th Avenue South where right of way shall accommodate curb return radii of 30-feet, plus the 3-foot utility strip behind the back of sidewalks. f. The private Tract Road providing access to proposed Lots 10 and 11, and the private Tract Road providing access to proposed Lots 7 and 8 shall be paved with asphalt and shall be at least 24 feet wide. The tract or easement boundaries shall be at least two (2) feet wider than the total proposed constructed width for the road. 2. Direct access to 96th Avenue South is prohibited, and the face of the final plat shall contain the following restriction: "RESTRICTION: Direct access to 96th Avenue South from Lots 1 and 17 shall not be permitted. Direct vehicular access to and from these lots is restricted to Southeast 23X Place/Street/Court." (the New Plat Street) ;. The owner/developer shall submit for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Department a 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 structure and other smaller trees. Approval and construction of the final roadway design and issuance of approved Grading, Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plans, or development permits for any lot may not occur prior to approval of the tree plan by the Kent Planning and Public Works Departments. No trees of a six-inch caliper or greater shall be removed from any lot except pursuant to a tree plan approved by the Planning Department. Appropriate mitigation, including the replacement of trees at a greater than 1:1 ratio, shall be required if any significant trees are to be removed. Grading Plans cannot be approved without an approved Detailed Tree Plan. 4. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way along 96'Avenue South for the entire subdivision's frontage thereon to provide for the widening and 9 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Stone Wood 4SU-97-13 & 4V-98-4 improvement requirements for this Residential Collector Street: the minimum right- of-way width is 26.5 feet from the approved centerline of the street. 5. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide all necessary public right of way for the improvements listed in Sections A and B, and shall provide all public and private easements necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the required improvements identified in Sections A and B, and also shall provide the required off- site easements for sanitary sewer. 6. The Owner/Subdivider shall design the stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water facilities so that no part of those facilities is within 10 feet of the existing 16-inch water transmission main, which crosses the subject property, except as approved by the City to make necessary utility crossings. 7. The Owner/Subdivider shall provide fire hydrants at approved locations along with a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute"fire flow" at 20 psi. 8. Dust generated during construction activities on all lots shall be controlled by wetting dust sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before they leave the site, and installing and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track out on public rights of way are violations subject to fines from the Department of Ecology, the City of Kent, and/or the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority. 9. The Owner/Subdivider shall dedicate five percent(5 %) of the total plat area for open space park land or pay a fee in lieu of a donation per the requirements of Section 12.04.490 of the Kent City Code. (The fee in lieu of a donation of 5% for open space land is $10,874 21, based on information from the King County Assessor's Office). 10. Mailboxes shall be located on either side of the plat street approximately at the southwest comer of the access easement adjacent to proposed Lot 17 and approximately 15 feet east of the property line between proposed Lots 3 and 4. C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AINY BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY LOT IN THE STONE WOOD SUBDIVISION (SU 97-13), THE 0 WNER/S UB DIVIDER SHALL: 1. Execute all required Environmental Mitigation Agreements, and the Declaration of Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Covenants prepared by the Property Management Section of Public Works. 10 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Stone Wood i #SU-97-13 & #V-98-4 i 2. Receive approval for all plans required above and construct all of the improvements j noted in Sections A and B, above. 3. Receive approval for "As-Built" Detailed Drainage, Sanitary Sewer and Water 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. 4. The property owner shall provide to residents of each lot information on mass transit opportunities in the vicinity of the site and about the safe use and disposal of household hazardous waste, including motor oil, in order to minimize surface water pollution. The Kent Planning Department shall provide the property owner with sample information brochures that may be distributed or made available to residents jto satisfy this condition. i D. For any lots 7,200 square feet or greater in size, the contractor shall protect solar ti j access to the lots by following the calculations of Kent Zoning Code Section ! 15.08.234. 6. The property owner shall execute and record a"Hold Harmless" agreement to hold the City of Kent harmless from all loss incurred as a result of any landslide or seismic activity, or soil disturbance. Such agreement shall be in a format provided by the City of Kent. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE VARIANCE: A. The top of the ravine shall be determined based on a field topographic survey by a licensed land survevor in the State of Washington, meeting the 15 percent slope criteria as defined in the Kent Zoning Code. The survey shall be approved by the City prior to recording the subdivision. B. Given the conditions required above and as part of SEPA, including the requirement that the ravine be included within a Sensitive Area Tract dedicated to the City, the Department of Public Works has no objection to a reduction in the setback for impervious surfaces from the top of the established top of ravine from 75 feet to 65 feet for proposed Lots 10 and 11, as requested. 11 r� a4.24tt 49'13' • Ir cyclone tence i WOOD STONE FINAL . PLAT #FSU-97-13 f X IN 1,-)1 A T a Gate 0.7' N of 1 / North line. 6 cyclone fence N89'52'09"E I T '/ 6t.50' 60.00' 60.00' 60.00' 63.00• 1 15 I ^ m 1 m m rn m r ILO c o 0 w W w W 13 ichN 17 16 0 15 0 14 o 7610 sq. m o $520 sq. ft. 8450 sq. ft. ;' BA50 sq. ft. 8450 sq. ft. 1 10 z Z 2 z z I 10' Lighting Easement �\ to the City of Kent. rh 1 46.00' - --_,___— ----- ----— _� p, I c� 35.92' ^ 60.00, 60.00' 53. 11' -4 j 1 1 209.03' m , V South 230th Place CV N89'52'09'E 320.00'_ _ I 0 305.00' - In to W Nydr N I N N Engi 211.29' C1 a 1 37.06' o c C1 C v 60.00' 50.00' 54.23' 1� z 1 i I C10 I ' I tt7 c9 co c co m (V 1 w 1 w 2 W 3 W 4 w 5 I 8530 sq. ft. 8450 sq- ft. 8450 sq. ft. 8450 sq. ft. In to Ln 7600 sq. f O N N M CV CV Q o 0 0 Z Z Z z z t 1 15- 1 - r 1 uoi 61.50' 60.00' 60.00' 50.00' 62.00' r I N89'52'01 ti I RESTRICTION: Au; Oirect access to 95th Avenue South from Lots i and 17 shall not ri. be permitted. Direct vehicular access to and from these lots is r2 restricted to Southeast 230th Place. A.�� 1 D1D6II OA2A 33639 9th Avenue South „ a E Centre Federal Nay, wa seo03 SE—NE m � qF sASp R1` (253) 661-1901 SURYLY rot O �- Pointe H 6 M Bu i 1 d 12919 169th Redmond, WA See Sheet 3 of 4 cn CA 0 w n�a a 07 m.. 11 '10 25"C 114.64' '. 0o y N1 '40' 16"E 115. 13' NNJ[N mn � m NmT vn �s nm T C J J - i%ten no 9tS �S1 ' m 1•." '.fl J 01.� �s s QI �E O,wO 77 OO �Nw+ w N � \ p �a b00 Q. ww+ G w m O 7 a 3 of C 3 'm. C 15 I ro c C 7 �a o� "jW = . I 20• F \ N2'03' 16'F 62.03' ru LA `!O `JS• m -°� gym., Dy •6� / 1L— W o'c 3 3`�" 2L +rna ocmi a no Rmn m'_ f0 ^' fV xN m W 7� n0 I co r o� wn» m zx ~ 'j I m a /� N // fO fA fu al Ol O r_ N 7 W u �mm ... ~G �tAS'N /• cn x 111 V, 1 f0 r- 1N` 3 r*C7 cc ru Too ,a�o lJl o (0 fL..• �cP `\�tCD ~a m o I O N O fV. �s s g ati a gg8 Z xa,0 fn M << �[ 6 / GGS a V a E� G8 3.ed N oo Ln z' � fn �i z _ arm- _ / Z 67 eZ•g` m n �� // cOiO l0CD ru ems' i Lo fV • J (jj fy N o 00 .�o :D co toO �'✓ 6 i rn �cp ru n �. w ;jc o.. ty -0p2 mtOD o Z-� .L5 �pV aZ 7 9 .6L 9� 9EB�5 � zm `Z r Z ` N fn m o =n x a D o 0y 0y5 umi 23• ,L. a2'ge 17 26 32S'�2 b o?'L Z5' e V �• • N V " A •0S. m N3 315a..N mo �.d w C.{. N om M �m -3 ow m V W.. (Y!11 cu . ,a _N1 '10'54"E 330.76' i ,(\ I n T f'f\ WOOD STONE FINAL L f L—LJ PLAT #FSU-97-13 Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: VIEW REGULATIONS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-99-6 - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on June 28 , 1998, regarding amendments to the Zoning Code related to the existing view regulations. The Board recommended adoption of the staff' s recommendation as outlined in the July 28 staff report with two additional amendments as outlined on page 5 of the July 28 LU&PB minutes . 3 . EXHIBITS: Cover memo dated 7/20/99, staff report with attachments dated 6/28/99, and minutes of the LU&PB of 6/28/99 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 ACT�I,OQN,,:^ �J Councilmember �"`�'�T� moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/ the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation to amend the view regulations as outlined in the zoning code amendment, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION:— ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A CITY OfCS`J��.S a IxVr��A Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/Fax (253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM JULY 20, 1999 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-99-6 VIEW REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION When the modem version of the Kent zoning code was adopted in 1973, one of the provisions in the code related to view regulations for hillside development. These regulations, outlined in Section 15.08.060 of the zoning code, regulate the height and location of buildings in designated areas. The view regulations were amended in 1977 based on a legal challenge, and have stayed constant since that time. However, recent events have led City staff in the Planning and Law Departments to reexamine the City's regulations. This includes an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a variance to the view regulations that went to King County Superior Court in 1996. We discussed this issue briefly with the Land Use and Planning Board in workshops on the overall zoning code update in spring of 1998, but did not propose any specific amendments at that time. On June 28, 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to these regulations (see attached staff report and minutes). This memorandum will summarize the issue and outline the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board. BACKGROUND The existing regulations define "view property", meaning that property on which views are protected, as follows: View Property: View property means any property having a general slope of twenty(20) percent or more and that property located immediately upsweep of such property for a distance of one hundred (100) feet in all SR zones, and a distance of two hundred (200) feet in all other 220-1th AVE.SO., /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 ZCA-99-6 View Regulations July 20, 1999 Page 2 zones, from the contour line where the slope become twenty (20) percent or greater. (Section 15.02.560, Kent zoning code) Under this definition, any parcel in the city that meets this slope criterion has its view protected from adjacent new development that is located "downslope". The regulations outlined in Section 15.08.060 (and which are attached), require two types of analysis: a"horizontal" analysis to assess the portion of the view property lot at which point the view angle will be determined, and a"vertical" analysis, which assesses the building height of the adjacent building. In all cases, the regulations allow a building of at least one story to be constructed on an adjacent lot (Section 15.08.060(A)(2)). City staff and the Land Use and Planning Board examined our existing regulations in light of some recent regulatory difficulties and with regard to other jurisdictions' regulations. One issue that was identified was the generalized and rather vague application of the ordinance. As currently defined, a"view property" is any property with a general slope of 20 percent or more. This definition presumes that any such lot has a view to protect. However, in some cases such lots may not have any view. The current code provisions do not allow any administrative flexibility with regard to the view regulations; building heights are regulated regardless of the placement and orientation of residences located above any new development. Our definition and regulations also do not stipulate which views are being protected (ie. views of the Green River valley, views of Mt. Rainier, etc.). The purpose language is also fairly vague, and does not justify what public purpose is being accomplished through view protection. Another issue with regard to lack of specificity relates to the definition of"story". The City's current view regulations state that"the regulations of this section shall not, however, prohibit construction of any building one (1) story in height or less, as measured from finished grade, on any legal lot of record." (Section 15.08.060, Kent Zoning Code) However, the definition of"story" found in Chapter 15.02 of the code does not define how tall the story of a building can be. Other jurisdictions which regulate views imposes a specific height limit in terms of number of feet for buildings in view corridors. RECOMMENDATION The Land Use and Planning Board recommends the following amendments to Section 15.08.060 of the zoning code. • Amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the zoning code as follows: A. Purpose 1. The visual environment of the ON of Kent is strongly characterized by scenic vistas to the Green River valley from the slopes of the East and West Hills which frame the valley. The purpose of the view regulations set out in this section is to regulate the height and location of building on hillsides in order to protect view corridors to and from these hillsides which are on the visual forefront of the city and — encourage placement of residences in ways which are compatible with site topography1with a signifieant , and te ZCA-99-6 View Regulations July 20, 1999 Page 3 ' - s themselyes, whieh afe a amenity whieh eugght 2. The criteria of this section establish procedures for determining heights and locations of buildings on hillsides so that views will not be destroyed by site development plans that fail to consider the topography of the lot and the orientation of adjacent properties and rightthe . The regulations of this section shall not, however, prohibit construction of any building with a building height of 25 feet or less, as measured from finished or natural grade, whichever is lower, on any legal lot of record. Add a new section 15.08.060(C) as follows: C. Exemptions. The planning director may waive or modify the view regulations on hillside development if it is determined that the intent to preserve views cannot be met by a strict application of the requirements, or if one (1) or more of the following conditions applies: 1. There is no available clear view of the valley from development located upslope of the proposed building, or 2. The orientation of development located upslope is toward a different view angle than proscribed in the view development regulations: or 3. The shape or topography of the lot and lots located upslope make a strict application of the view requirements unnecessary or impractical. • Add a new section 15.08.060(D) as follows: D. Application for variance. If an applicant requests relief from the provisions of this section through a variance as provided in Section 15.09.040, prior to public hearing the applicant shall erect a pole structure outlining the proposed height of the building where it is to be constructed on the proposed site, in order to allow adjacent property owners to assess the view impact of the proposed variance. The pole structure shall be in place at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed variance. Staff from the Planning Department will be available at the July 20 City Council meeting to present this issue and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact me at 856-5438. KON:pm P:MIS STAFF RPTSI VIEWCC.DOC cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Roger Lubovich, City Attorney CITY Of ,W Q\.I 't. izrrfV1CTN- Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing June 28, 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 28, 1999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Terry Zimmerman, Vice Chair Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Steve Dowell Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Bell, Excused Jon Johnson, Excused David Malik, Unexcused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to approve the minutes of April 12, 1999 with the following correction to change the term "proper council" to "proper committee" as indicated on page 9, fourth paragraph of the minutes. Motion Carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None ZCA-99-6 VIEW REGULATIONS Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that this recommendation is to consider potential amendments to Section 15.08.060 of the Kent Zoning Code pertaining to regulations for hillside development. Mr. O'Neill stated that view regulations have been in affect in the City since the 1973 zoning code was adopted and said these regulations regulate the height of buildings located downslope from 220-1th AVE. KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 2 properties defined as "view properties". Mr. O'Neill said that "view property" is defined in the existing regulations as "any property having a general slope of twenty percent or more and that property located immediately upslope for a distance of 100 feet from that property". Mr. O'Neill stated that property must have a general slope of 20%, and indicated that if there is a slope at some point on the property of 20%,but the slope of the entire length or width of the property is not 20%, then the property is not defined as view property. Mr. O'Neill stated that when staff is looking at a proposed residential development for either single family residential or multifamily, two things occur: • Staff defines the horizontal view angle by drawing a slope line perpendicular to the direction the contours are running. Properties located down slope of the view property would have their views regulated so that the view property would be protected from view obstruction. • Staff calculates the vertical view angle by drawing a line from the mid point of the view lot and envisioning a six foot high wall on the property than drawing a horizontal line from that point to determine the building envelope for the downslope property. Mr. O'Neill stated that, as discussed at Board workshops held in May and June as well as previous hearings pertaining to the zoning code, both Planning staff and the City Attorney's staff has noted concerns pertaining to the nature of existing view regulations. Mr. O'Neill referred to pages three and four of the staff report in summarizing concerns. First, he stated that the purpose language of the view regulation ordinance does not specifically define the types of views protected. Also, existing purpose language allows for building construction on a downslope lot of at least one story. If a downslope lot is level, the current regulations would be fairly onerous on this lot and could nullify the ability to construct any house. Mr. O'Neill stated that in 1977 the City's regulations were amended to allow a one-story house to be constructed on a downslope lot where view regulations were restrictive. However, more recently a property owner desired to build a home one story in height in a view restrictive area and the one story was 28 feet in height. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff is concerned that the City's existing definition of"story" does not define a story's height. Mr. O'Neill stated that other cities' view regulation ordinances defined a specific height allowed for a building in a view protection area. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff felt that the regulated view corridors needs to be defined in order to make existing view regulations more defensible. Mr. O'Neill said that staff is recommending the following amendments to view regulations. He Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 3 stated that the first amendment would amend the purpose language by adding a sentence at the beginning saying "the visual environment of the City of Kent is strongly characterized by scenic vistas to the Green River valley from the slopes of the east and west hills which frame the valley". Mr. O'Neill stated that the intent of this statement is to highlight the purpose of these regulations and what views they are met to protect and that those views are important community resources. He stated that amendments be made to the purpose language clarifying the purpose for protection of view site corridors as well as encouraging placement of residences in ways compatible with public vistas. Mr. O'Neill stated that language would be provided to allow for construction of any building with the maximum height of 25 feet within a view corridor area. Mr. O'Neill stated that the addition of a new section be added to the ordinance allowing the Planning Director administrative flexibility to waive or modify view regulations if one or more of the following criteria applies; 1) where there is no available clear view of the valley from development located upslope of a proposed building or 2)the orientation of a development located upslope is towards a different view angle then prescribed in the view development regulations or 3) the shape or topography of the lot or lots located upslope make a strict application of the view requirements unnecessary or impractical. Sharon Woodford voiced concern that protecting Mt. Rainier views had not been addressed. Mr. O'Neill responded that some Mt. Rainier views are protected by existing view regulations and that the original purpose behind existing view regulations is specifically view protection for hillside development. He stated that many properties within the City with potential views of Mt. Rainier are not located on hillsides and exist on flat lots with a view of Mt. Rainer, as the mountain is such a prominent feature. Planning Director, Jim Harris stated that it would be nearly impossible to protect a view of Mt. Rainier, as it is so vast and far away. Steve Dowell suggested changing terminology in Section 15.08.060(A) 2 which states "...shall not prohibit construction...as measured from finished grade" in some manner that would protect the views, as he voiced concern that a finished grade could be altered if the property was in filled. Mr. O'Neill stated that wording in Section 15.08.060(A) 2 could indicate that building height is measured from the grade that exists prior to the occurrence of any site development. Mr. O'Neill stated that the term "finished grade" is used in the original definition and that the definition of grade in the existing zoning code refers to the lowest point of the finished surface of Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 4 the ground. Mr. O'Neill stated that the term "natural grade" could be used in the amended version of the ordinance. Mr. Harmon asked Mr O'Neill if it was his understanding that Planning staff s purpose for recommending view regulation amendments was to preserve the City's view ordinance and redefine the ordinance to allow the City's legal department to protect the views of those residents that pay taxes based on their view property. Mr. O'Neill stated that in prior discussion with the Board, the existing regulatory framework was to be preserved. However, it was determined that the addition of a maximum building height needed to be added to the view regulation for further clarity and defensibility. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Edward Shemeta,9405 South 205'Place,Kent,WA stated that view property commands a higher monetary value, which decreases when, that view is obstructed. Mr. Shemeta said that as construction progressed on 94d' Avenue below his view property that he met with the City. He stated that as construction progressed on the residence, that the height of the home exceeded the City's agreement. Mr. Shemeta stated that in meeting further with the City planners and the developers it became difficult to determine how the height of the building should be measured. Mr. Shemeta said that he would recommend that a builder place a pole on the construction site with a flag or marker to indicate the height of the roofline. Mr. Shemeta stated that in this way, impacted parties would clearly understand what the consequences of a waiver request decision would be. Mr. Shemeta stated that when he was presented with the architectural drawings for the house, the drawings did not show the additional garage structure added later with only a two-foot setback from the road. He stated that the location of the garage obstructed his view more than the house. Ron Harmon inquired of Mr. Shemeta that if a view pole had been erected and the height marked at the time that the permit process was in progress, would the view regulations have been defined enough for him to either approve or reject the structure's height. Mr. Shemeta concurred and stated that he would have been able to calculate that four feet based on his understanding exceeded the height limitations. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Mr. O'Neill stated that a view pole is erected to assess view impacts. Mr. Harmon said that he understood Mr. Shemeta's proposal was to erect a view pole on the property prior to a variance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 5 Mr. O'Neill stated that a section could be added to the view regulations to include the use of a view pole in a case where a variance is requested. Mr. O'Neill suggested a phrase be added to the view regulations that say, "that if someone requested a variance part of the process would be to erect view poles on the property." Mr. Harmon suggested that if a house is constructed in an area with view regulations that a pole be placed on the property during the permit process. He stated erecting a pole on the property would allow impacted parties to determine if view from their properties would be obstructed. Mr. Harmon stated that terminology should be added to the view regulations to address erecting and marking a view pole when any development takes place on view regulated property. Mr. O'Neill stated that a developer is complying with the code when he abides by the maximum height threshold established by Planning staff and if view poles were erected and neighbors objected to the height, they would not have much recourse. Mr. O'Neill stated that if a builder or property owner were to request a variance to exceed their height limitations, it would be fair to erect view poles at that time to allow neighbors to address their concerns. Mr. Dowell stated that in Section 15.08.060(A)2 he would like"inished grade"be reworded to read "...as measured from original or natural grade... Mr. O'Neill advised changing the terminology to "natural or finished grade, which ever is lower". He stated that under certain circumstances builders are sensitive to up slope property views by grading lower or building daylight basements. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation of ZCA-99-6 View Regulations with the following amendments: To amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the Zoning Code as recommended by Staff with an addition to Item 2, Page 5 by changing "finished grade" to read "from natural or finished grade which ever is lower". To add additional languages to the code to allow erecting a marked view pole if a variance is required. Motion carried unanimously. ZCA-99-5 Condominium ZoninE Strategies Mr. Satterstrom stated that a tour of condominium developments in the East Hill area of Kent took place with the Land Use and Planning Board in May where they looked at a variety of densities and condominium designs. Mr. Satterstrom stated that prior to staff s submittal of their recommendations, several alternatives were looked at by the Board and City Council in encouraging homeownership in multifamily developments. CITY OF 0\ r- �Nvr,Tx Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253)856-5454/FAX(253)856-6454 James P. Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT JUKE 28, 1999 MEMO TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-99-6—AMENDMENTS TO VIEW REGULATIONS INTRODUCTION When the modern version of the Kent zoning code was adopted in 1973, one of the provisions in the code related to view regulations for hillside development. These regulations, outlined in Section 15.08.060 of the zoning code, regulate the height and location of buildings in designated areas. The view regulations were amended in 1977 based on a legal challenge, and have stayed constant since that time. However, recent events have led City staff in the Planning and Law Departments to reexamine the City's regulations. This includes an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a variance to the view regulations that went to King County Superior Court in 1996. We discussed this issue briefly with the Land Use and Planning Board in workshops on the overall zoning code update in spring of 1998, but did not propose any specific amr_rld..1antc at r113t time. The Land L.'SC and Dlanninl- Board discussed this issue at workshops held on May 10 and June 14, 1999. This memorandum will present information on the City's current regulations, and outline some recommended amendments to these regulations. These amendments will be considered by the Board at a public hearing on June 28, 1999. EXISTING REGULATIONS The existing regulations define "view property", meaning that property on which views are protected, as follows: View Property: View property means any property having a general slope of twenty (20) percent or more and that property located immediately upslope of such property for a distance of 1201th AVE. SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE i_'531 S50-5200 #ZCA-99-6 Amendments to View Regulations LUPB 6/28/99 Page 2 one hundred (100) feet in all SR zones, and a distance of two hundred (200) feet in all other zones, from the contour line where the slope becomes twenty (20) percent or greater. (Section 15.02.560, Kent zoning code) Under this definition, any parcel in the City, which meets this slope criterion, has its view protected from adjacent new development that is located "downslope". The regulations outlined in Section 15.08.060 and which are attached, require two types of analysis: a "horizontal" analysis to assess the portion of the view property lot at which point the view angle will be determined, and a"vertical" analysis, which assesses the building height of the adjacent building. In all cases, the regulations allow a building of at least one story to be constructed on an adjacent lot (Section 15.08.060(A)(2)). The purpose language of the view regulations is found in Section 15.08.060(A) of the zoning code. In part, this language states that the purpose of these code provisions is to "regulate the height and location of buildings on hillsides in order to protect the external appearance of hillsides . . . and to protect views themselves, which are a visual amenity which ought to be protected and enhanced." The purpose language also states these regulations exist "so that views will not be destroyed by site development plans that fail to consider adjacent properties and the right of those properties to a view." SUMMARY OF OTHER CITIES' REGULATIONS ON VIEW At the workshops with the Land Use and Planning Board, the Board asked staff to evaluate whether and how other jurisdictions in the area regulate private view corridors. The results of that research are presented in the attached matrix. Generally, the jurisdictions that regulate private views do so using two general methods. The first is to protect view corridors, a method which emphasizes the placement of buildings as opposed to the height of buildings. This feature is typically found in the applicable jurisdiction's shoreline master program. For example, Kirkland, Seattle, and Tacoma all require view sheds to be reserved through a portion of waterfront properties, typically ranging between 30 and 35 percent of the lot. For example, this would preclude a waterfront property owner of a 50-foot lot from building a house that was more than 30 feet wide. The emphasis is on preserving views "through" the lot, as opposed to the height of buildings. The other general method is to restrict building heights in a certain defined view overlay area. The most restrictive view overlay has been adopted by the City of Gig Harbor, which restricts building heights within their height-restricted area to 16 feet. The most complex overlay has been adopted by the City of Port Townsend, which requires different building height limitations for different blocks and even lots within their downtown waterfront to protect water views for residents who live on the bluff above the downtown area. Another approach, which is used by the City of Edmonds, is to simply restrict the building height of all residential structures. There are many view corridors in Edmonds, and the City has elected to restrict the height of all residential buildings to 25 feet. The height for residential structures in #ZCA-99-6 Amendments to View Regulations LUPB 6/28/99 Page 3 Kent is 35 feet, which is probably a more typical height limit around the region for single-family residential buildings. ISSUES City staff has examined our existing regulations in light of some recent regulatory difficulties and with regard to other jurisdictions' regulations. We also asked our zoning code consultants, McConnell/Burke, to examine our provisions (their analysis is attached). Generally, the following issues have been identified: 1. Lack of Specificity: As currently defined, a "view property" is any property with a general slope of 20 percent or more. This definition presumes that any such lot has a view to protect. However, in some cases such lots may not have any view. The current code provisions do not allow any administrative flexibility with regard to the view regulations; building heights are regulated regardless of the placement and orientation of residences located above any new development. Our definition and regulations also do not stipulate which views are being protected (ie. views of the Green River valley, views of Mt. Rainier, etc.). The purpose language is also fairly vague, stating that one purpose of the regulations is to "protect the external appearance of hillsides". However, it is unclear how the regulations in fact accomplish this goal. Another issue with regard to lack of specificity relates to the definition of "story". As previously discussed, the City's current view regulations state that "the regulations of this section shall not, however, prohibit construction of any building one (1) story in height or less, as measured from finished grade, on any legal lot of record." (Section 15.08.060, Kent Zoning Code) However, the definition of"story" found in Chapter 15.02 of the code does not define how tall the story of a building can be. The current definition reads as follows: Story: Story means that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused underfloor space is more than six (6)feet above grade for more than fifty (50)percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve (12)feet above grade at any point, such as basement, cellar or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a story. (Section 15.02.515, Kent Zoning Code) As noted in the matrix of other cities' view regulations, every other jurisdiction which regulates views imposes a specific height limit in terms of number of feet for buildings in view corridors. Our regulations would be more straight-forward if our regulations defined the number of feet in a "story" (including the roof) or simply defined a maximum allowable height within the view area(such as 25 feet, for example). 2. Public Purpose.- As noted previously, the purpose language for the view regulations is found in Section 15.08.060(A) of the zoning code. The existing language states these regulations #ZCA-99-6 Amendments to View Regulations LUPB 6/28/99 Page 4 exist "to regulate the height and location of buildings on hillsides in order to protect the external appearance of hillsides . . . and to protect views themselves, which are a visual amenity which ought to be protected and enhanced." The purpose language also states "so that views will not be destroyed by site development plans that fail to consider adjacent properties and the right of those properties to a view." This existing language is fairly vague, in that it does not define which views are being protected or why. An article written by an attorney from Municipal Research Services Center states that view protection ordinances should be justified on general public health and welfare. For example, view protection is often an important goal of some shoreline management programs, and is supported by the Shoreline Management Act. Our purpose language should provide a stronger justification for view regulations. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO KENT'S VIEW REGULATIONS At the workshops on May 10 and June 14, the Board expressed general support for the current view regulations which are in place, and also concerns about the consequences of repealing or dramatically altering those regulations. Based on the issues outlined above, staff recommends the following three amendments to the City's current regulations, which will make the existing regulatory framework clearer and more defensible. A. Revise purpose language: The purpose language should be amended to reference the City's topographic features and accompanying views of the Green River valley as an important community amenity which deserves special attention. B. Clarify how high buildings can be in view protection areas: In order to clarify how high a residence within the view protection area can be, staff recommends that a building height of 25 feet be allowed for buildings in the view area. This will provide more reliability for administration of the code. Also, it incorporates definitions of"building height" and "grade" which are already included in the zoning code (in Sections 15.02.065 and 15.02.165, respectively). It is important to note that "building height is measured from "grade", and "grade" is defined in the code as the lowest point of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and a point 5 feet distant from that wall. This is illustrated in the following graphic: Ga'Gu��M L4 �OiT�1'1R1 I 5 tt,& '�J�: ire #ZCA-99-6 Amendments to View Regulations LUPB 6/28/99 Page 5 As shown, building height is measured from the lowest point next to a building, which in part mitigates against potential view blockage. For example, if building heights were limited to no more than 25 feet in the view area, and there was a 10-foot slope difference between the low part of the grade and the high part of the grade where the building lines were, the building height at the high point of the lot would only be 15 feet. C. Allow administrative fle-cibility: The City's current regulations are fairly proscriptive with regard to defining view areas (referred to as the horizontal view angle in the code) which will be protected for view properties. However, there are some cases where new residential construction has its height limited based on the view regulations, when in fact due to topography or the placement of houses upslope the new residence in reality would not be blocking any views. Some view ordinances such as the City of Seattle's allow for a waiver or modification of the regulations if it is determined that the intent to preserve views cannot be met by application of the requirements, or if no view is clearly available. Adding administrative flexibility, including administrative variances, has been a theme of recent zoning code amendments made over the past few years in Kent, and would probably be appropriate for the view preservation provisions as well. RECOMMENDATION Planning Department staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board recommend the following amendments to Section 15.08.060 of the zoning code. • Amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the zoning code as follows: A. Purpose 1. The visual environment of the Citv of Kent is strongly characterized by scenic vistas to the Green River valley from the slopes of the East and West Hills which frame the valley. The purpose of the view regulations set out in this section is to regulate the height and location of building on hillsides in order to protect view corridors to and from these hillsides which are on the visual forefront of the city and encourage placement of residences in ways which are compatible with the preservation of such_public vistas. __ . _ , and eflhftfleed. 2. The criteria of this section establish procedures for determining heights and locations of buildings on hillsides so that views will not be destroyed by site development plans that fail to consider the topography of the lot and the orientation of adjacent properties and view. The regulations of this section shall not, however, prohibit construction of any building with a building height of 25 feet or less, as measured from finished grade, on any legal lot of record. #ZCA-99-6 Amendments to View Regulations LUPB 6/28/99 Page 6 • Add a new section 15.08.060(C) as follows: C Exemptions. The planning director may waive or modify the view regulations on hillside development if it is determined that the intent to preserve views cannot be met by a strict application of the requirements, or if one (1) or more of the following conditions applies: 1. There is no available clear view of the vallev from development located upslope of the proposed building: or 2. The orientation of development located upslope is toward a different view angle than proscribed in the view development regulations, or 3. The shape or topography of the lot and lots located upslope make a strict application of the view requirements unnecessary or impractical. Staff will be prepared to present and discuss these proposed amendments with the Board at your June 28 public hearing. If you have any questions prior to the workshop, please contact me at 856-5438. KON.•pm P:WPBIviewluph.doc Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Roger Lubovich,City Attorney ZONNG i 15.08.060 accidental release from the facility,and Sec. 15.08.060. View regulations on hillside shall meet federal, state and local de- development. sign and construction requirements; f. Underground hazardous substance land use facilities shall meet federal, state A. Purpose. and local design and construction re- quirements; 1. The purpose of the view regulations set out g, Hazardous substance land uses shall in this section is to regulate the height and comply with article 80 of the Uniform location of buildings on hillsides in order to Fire Code as revised in 1988 and there- protect the external appearance of hillsides fir, which are on the visual forefront of the city h. Hazardous substance land uses shall with a significant impact on the quality of provide for review and approval by the the visual environment,and to protect views city fire department of a hazardous themselves, which are a visual amenity substance spill contingency plan for which ought to be protected and enhanced. immediate implementation in the event of a release of hazardous substances or 2. The criteria of this section establish proce- wastes at the facility, dures for determining heights and loca- i. Hazardous substance land uses should tions of buildings on hillsides so that views use traffic routes which do not go will not be destroyed by site development through residential zones; and plans that fail to consider adjacent proper- j. Hazardous substance land uses in the ties and the right of those properties to a 0, NCC, CC and DC zones shall be view. The regulations-of this.section shall entirely enclosed within a building. be interpreted and enforced at the time of In case of conflict between any of these site development plan review. The regulations development standards and the develop- of this section shall not, however, prohibit meat standards of specific zoning districts construction of any building one(1)story in or other requirements of this title, the more height or less, as measured from finished restrictive requirement shall apply. grade, on any legal lot of record. (Ord. No. 2801, § 18, 9-6-88; Ord. No. 2808, § 9, 10-18-88; Ord. No. 3285, § 1, 3-19-96) Cross references—Public nuisances, ch. 8.01; litter con- trol,ch. 8.04;noise control,ch. 8.05; rodent control,ch. 8.06. B. View regulations defcned. Any projected development located within two hundred (200) feet downslope from an RA, R1 or MR-D zoned area or within five hundred (500) feet downslope from an MR-G, MR-M or MR-H zoned area when such area qualifies as view property must allow for the protection of the view from such property as follows: 1. Protection of view of large tracts of land. a. If the property which has a view to be protected exceeds either twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area or two hundred(200) feet in length or width, the restriction on height of the building to be erected on the adjacent downslope property shall be determined as r follows: b. Two (2) lines shall be drawn parallel to the slope line, one (1) such line on either side of the building. The term "side," as used in this subsection, shall be defined as the furthest point of the building measured outward perpendicular from a line through the center of Supp. No. 13 1249 § 15.08.060 KENT CITY CODE the building parallel to the slope line.These two(2) lines shall extend upslope continuing parallel to the slope line until they meet the property line. No part of the proposed building shall exceed in height by more than ten (10) feet the mean elevation along the property line between these two (2) parallel lines. til Q. a 01 c ri... of .4 2. Protection of view of smaller tracts of land. Those tracts of land measuring less than twenty _ thousand (20,000) square feet in area and less than two hundred (200) feet in both length and width, as well as the erection of more than one (1) residential building on the same piece of property, will be covered by the following regulations: a. View property in RA, RI and MR-D zones. (1) View is an unobstructed field of vision comprising a horizontal angle of not more than ninety (90) degrees and a vertical angle of not more than five (5) degrees below the horizontal. (2) The horizontal view angle shall have as its origin a vertical axis passing through the geographic center of the lot whose view is to be protected. The ninety-degree angle shall be oriented with forty(45) degrees on either side of the slope line,which shall be laid out perpendicular to the mean contour of the area as contrasted to the slope of the particular lot in question. (3) The vertical view angle shall have as its origin a point six (6) feet above the ground surface on a lot prior to any excavation for a foundation or basement. Supp. No. 13 1250 ZONING 3 .5.08.060 Horizontal View Angle 1M 1 90 -✓' Vertical View Angle Lac Line Horizontal 6' S• Lot Lir�n�r (4) No building constructed within five hundred (500) feet of the point of origin of the view angle and located beneath the airspace located within that angle shall rise above the lower extent of the vertical angle. b. View property in. MR-G, MR-M and MR-H zones. (1) View is an unobstructed field of vision comprised of a horizontal view angle of sixty(60) degrees and a vertical view angle extending from the horizontal upward to the vertical line. (2) The horizontal view angle shall have as its origin a vertical axis passing through the geographic center of the lot whose view is to be protected or, in the case of an existing apartment building, the vertical axis should pass through the geographical center of those units whose view is to be protected. The sixty-degree angle may be shifted to the extent that no less than twenty(20) degrees of the sixty(60) degrees lies on either side of 1251 5 15.08.060 KENT CITY CODE the slope line, which shall be laid out perpendicular to the mean contour of the area as contrasted to the slope of the particular lot in question. i l r geographic slope Genrer of Loo Line ao�• M o �L (3) The vertical angle shall originate on a horizontal line extending from the intersection of the vertical line forming the axis for the horizontal view angle and the original slope, or, in the case of an existing apartment building,the floor level of the lowest residential floor. Geographical anter of unit Lot ..— Horizontal Geographical , Center of Lot Horizontal-1- t--9arkinq/Storage Lavel Lot Linn (4) No building constructed within five hundred (500) feet of the point of origin of the view angle and located beneath the airspace located within the angle shall rise above the lower extent of the vertical angle. Cross reference—Hillside development subdivision regulations, 5 4.04.480.C. Sec. 15.08.070. Animals in residential dis• Sec. 15.08.080. Parking, storage or habita. tricts. tion of major recreational Animals(excluding household pets such as cats equipment. and dogs),especially horses,cows,sheep and goats, For purposes of this title, major recreational shall not be permitted in residential districts on equipment is defined as including boats and boat lots smaller than twenty thousand(20,000)square trailers and travel trailers. No more than two (2) feet. pieces of recreational vehicle equipment shall be Cross reference—Animal control,ch. 8.03. parked in the required front yard, and no such equipment shall be used for living purposes. 1252 VIEW PROTECTION REGULATIONS SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES IN PUGET SOUND REGION CITY SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS Kent • Defines all property with a general slope of 20 percent of greater as"view property" • Regulates development for 200 feet downslope of view property so that view corridors are protected; building height on new development may be limited as a result • Restricts building height and building placement in the Shoreline Master Program Edmonds • Restricts building height to 25 feet in all residential zoning districts • Reviews view blockage potential of commercial buildings taller than two stories as part of design review process Mercer Island . No view protection regulations Kirkland • Regulates views in its waterfront zoning district only View corridors must be maintained for new development across 30 percent of the average parcel width • Regulates building placement as opposed to building height (zoning district allows buildings to be 30 feet Gig Harbor • Has established a height restriction area overlay in the zoning code • Within the overlay,new development is limited to 16 feet in height Olympia • Has established height overlay areas for Budd Inlet, State Capitol, and Urban Waterfront areas • Budd Inlet height based on grade of adjacent lots; other overlays height requirements vary, but allows buildings up to 30 feet Tacoma . View sensitive overlay district—building height limited to 25 feet • Shoreline master program requires view corridors in some shoreline environments—typically 30 percent of lot width along shoreline waterfront)properties Seattle • Shoreline master program requires view corridors in some shoreline environments—typically 35 percent of lot width along shoreline waterfront properties Port Townsend • Has established height overlay for the area above the downtown waterfront • Building height in the downtown area varies by block, protects views of residential properties located above the downtown Des Moines 0 No view protection regulations � � 1 r Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM ZONING STRATEGIES ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-99-5 - APPROVAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On April 19, 1999, the Council ' s Planning and Public Works Committee referred the matter of condominium zoning to the Land Use and Planning Board. The Board held workshops, conducted a tour of existing condominium projects, and held a public hearing on the matter on June 28, 1999 . Following the public hearing, the Board voted to recommend that a new zoning district (called MR-T) be created which would permit townhouse condominiums . 3 . EXHIBITS: Cover memo dated 7/20/99, staff report dated 6/28/99 with attachments, and LU&PB minutes of 6/28/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Land Use & Planning Board/Public Works & Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/disapprove/modify th Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation to approve the aff ' s recommendation of ZCA-99-5 with five (5) additio al changes as outlined on page 15 of the LU&PB minutes and dir ct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance . DISCUSSION: / qv ACTION: r\91 f Council Agenda Item No. 7B J 1, 71, CITY OF -_ lIVvicT!► Jim White, Mayor Planning Department(253) 856-5454/Fax(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris,Planning Director MEMORANDUM July 20, 1999 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND KENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE (MR-T) ZONING DISTRICT #ZCA-99-5 RECOMMENDATION OF LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the Land Use & Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning." On May 10 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board discussed and reviewed the condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were evaluated at these workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various condominium developments was conducted with the Planning Board on May 24, 1999, in order to gain a first- hand familiarity with this form of development. Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the Planning Board decided to move forward to public hearing on one of the options. This option was the creation of a special zoning district that would be restricted to townhouse-only condominium development, subject to specific development regulations which would determine the density and design of these developments. The Planning Board decided to revisit the PUD amendments at a later date. Recommendation of the Land Use and PlanninE Board: Following the public hearing on the matter on June 28, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board voted to recommend that a new zoning district — called MR-T for Multifamily Residential/Townhouse — be created with the following definition, use and development standards: Add to Section 15.03.010 Establishment of Districts MR-T Multifamily Residential District— Townhouse It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low and medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2204th AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 #ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Memo July 20, 1999 Page 2 Add the following definition of"townhouse" to Section 15.02 — Multifamily Townhouse. A townhouse dwelling is a residential unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below Add the following as principally permitted uses: ■ One single family dwelling per lot ■ One modular home per lot ■ Duplexes ■ Multifamily townhouse units ■ Mobile home parks (subject to footnote #13) ■ Group homes class 1-A ■ Group homes class 1-B ■ Home day care ■ Day care center ■ Crop and tree farming Add the following as accessory uses: ■ Rooming and boarding of not more than 3 persons ■ Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use ■ Accessory dwelling units (subject to footnote #10) ' ■ Home occupations (subject to footnote #11) ■ Storage buildings and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16) ■ Offices incidental to a principally permitted use Add the following as conditional uses: ■ Group homeF classes 1-C, 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C ■ Drive-in churches, welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or correction ■ Transportation and transit facilities ■ Railway and bus depots, taxi stands • Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam petroleum, etc. ■ Public facilities including firehouses, police stations, libraries and administrative offices of governmental agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools and colleges ■ Open space uses including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith ■ Private clubs,fraternal lodges, etc. Add the following as special uses: _ ■ Churches (subject to footnote #4) #ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Memo July 20, 1999 Page 3 Add the following Development Standards to Section 15.04.170: Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 du/ac MF: 16du/ac Minimum lot area SF: 4000 sq.ft. Duplex: 8000 sq.ft. MF: 8500 sq.ft.for first 2 units, then 2500 sq.ft.per additional unit Minimum lot width SF: 40 ft. Duplex: 80 ft. MF: 80 ft. Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote #5) Duplex: 40% (subject to footnote #5) MF: 45% (subject to footnote #5) Minimum yard requirements SF: same as MR-G zone Duplex: same as MR-G zone MF: same as MR-G zone Height limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 feet Duplex: 3 stories/30 feet MF: 3 stories/30 feet Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote #19) Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote #19) MF.- 70% (subject to footnote #19) Zero lot line development Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall apply Signs Same as for MR-G zone Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone Multifamily design review Yes. SEE, Section 15.09.047 Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to in conjunction with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. #ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Memo July 20, 1999 Page 4 Add the following rezoning criterion to Section 15.09.050: 1. The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods. FNS1mw\P:WDMIN\CONDOMEM.DOC enc: Staff Report Dated 6-28-99 LUPB Minutes Dated 6-28-99 cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 5 Mr. O'Neill stated that a section could be added to the view regulations to include the use of a view pole in a case where a variance is requested. Mr. O'Neill suggested a phrase be added to the view regulations that say,"that if someone requested a variance part of the process would be to erect view poles on the property." Mr. Harmon suggested that if a house is constructed in an area with view regulations that a pole be placed on the property during the permit process. He stated erecting a pole on the property would allow impacted parties to determine if view from their properties would be obstructed. Mr. Harmon stated that terminology should be added to the view regulations to address erecting and marking a view pole when any development takes place on view regulated property. Mr. O'Neill stated that a developer is complying with the code when he abides by the maximum height threshold established by Planning staff and if view poles were erected and neighbors objected to the height, they would not have much recourse. Mr. O'Neill stated that if a builder or property owner were to request a variance to exceed their height limitations, it would be fair to erect view poles at that time to allow neighbors to address their concerns. Mr. Dowell stated that in Section 15.08.060(A)2 he would like"finished grade"be reworded to read "...as measured from original or natural grade... Mr. O'Neill advised changing the terminology to "natural or finished grade, which ever is lower". He stated that under certain circumstances builders are sensitive to up slope property views by grading lower or building daylight basements. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation of ZCA-99-6 View Regulations with the following amendments: To amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the Zoning Code as recommended by Staff with an addition to Item 2, Page 5 by changing "finished grade" to read 'from natural or finished grade which ever is lower". To add additional languages to the code to allow erecting a marked view pole if a variance is required. Motion carried unanimously. ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strategies Mr. Satterstrom stated that a tour of condominium developments in the East Hill area of Kent took place with the Land Use and Planning Board in May where they looked at a variety of densities and condominium designs. Mr. Satterstrom stated that prior to staff s submittal of their recommendations, several alternatives were looked at by the Board and City Council in encouraging homeownership in multifamily developments. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that staff needs to look into the concept of proposing some regulatory mechanisms for encouraging condominium housing in Kent. Mr. Satterstrom stated that this concept is traced to Housing Goal HA policy of the Comprehensive Plan which states "...revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities." Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 2 of his staff report in identifying the following four options that the Board and City Council evaluated in their search to encourage condominium housing in Kent. • Contract Rezoning • Planned Unit Development ordinance • Townhouse Zoning District • Overlay (or"Incentive's Zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that even though Contract Rezoning is legal, it is poor policy and considered the antithesis of zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the PUD ordinance was looked at by the Board and tabled in order to acquire further information. He stated that the Overlay or Incentive zoning — option was viewed to have limited application and not a viable option. Mr. Satterstrom stated that after careful review of the four options, staff is recommending the creation of a separate zoning district called the MR-T (Multifamily Residential-Townhouse) zoning district. He stated that staff proposes that the Board recommend to the City Council that the MR-T district be added to the City's zoning district with a purpose statement that says "that it is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan." Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff is proposing the addition of a multifamily townhouse definition that says "a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below" Mr. Satterstrom spoke at length from Page 4 of the staff report in stating that the proposed "Principally permitted Uses"; "Accessory Uses" and "Conditional Uses" for the MR-T zone will remain predominately the same as in the MR-G zone. Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 5 of the staff report in speaking at length on development standards. He stated that the maximum density for single family would be 8.71 dwelling units per acre, the same as MR-G. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the multiple family density would be 12.0 dwelling units Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 7 per acre. He reiterated the proposed development standards as indicated on Page 5 of the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom stated that an additional standard is added stating that"All Multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to approval of a development permit by the City." Mr. Satterstrom pointed out the five criteria relating to property rezoning as indicated on page six of the report. He stated that to ensure that rezones to the MR-T are consistent with the intent for which this zone was created; staff is suggesting, for the Board's edification, the addition of the two following criteria in respect to MR-T zones. "The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential neighborhoods" and "The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services." Mr. Satterstrom submitted a letter for the record-from Jack Lynch and Associates as Exhibit 1, suggesting that the density per acre be "a range"rather than a"specific number"of units per acre. r- Mr. Satterstrom responded to Terry Zimmerman's request to reiterate the City's approval process for this recommendation. He stated that if the Board recommends approval to implement the MR-T zone,this item would then be sent on to the Full City Council,with initial review by its Planning and Public Works Committee. Mr. Satterstrom stated that when this recommendation goes before the Council, it will be voted on and an ordinance would be generated. Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. Satterstrom at what point further comment would be received. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Council recognizes people who want to speak at the Public Works/Planning Committee and at the Full Council meeting. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing is where public comment is most likely to influence the Council in reaching a decision. In response to Ron Harmon, Mr. Satterstrom stated that Green Meadow Townhomes were the first stop on the workshop tour of condominums and that the density on the buildable portion of the site was 10 units per acre as the preponderance of the site is wetlands. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Robert Howe, 5446 Hyada Blvd NE, Tacoma, WA stated that he is a member of a couple of limited liability companies that are engaged in developing property in the City of Kent. He stated that if the intent of the City is to provide a viable program that will result in townhouse development, staff needs to assure that the restrictions and guidelines enforced are not so restrictive that this recommendation becomes unworkable. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Howe voiced concern over staff's recommendation that a townhome site needs to be located adjacent to or have direct access to an arterial street. He stated that developers should be given opportunity to address viable egress and access alternatives to a proposed site. Mr. Howe questioned if MR-T zoning was restricted to the current MR-G zone or could this zoning apply to SR-6 or SR-8. He stated that the development process is time consuming and would like to see a method implemented to decrease the length of time for the rezoning process, perhaps by deleting the comprehensive plan amendment process. Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 2661h, Kent,WA stated that providing affordable housing is crucial. He stated that the proposed zoning does not provide for more affordable housing for people. Mr. Dinsdale stated that to decrease cost, densities must increase to more than 12 units per acre. Mr. Dinsdale stated that by restricting egress and ingress for townhome developments next to an arterial,property that can take advantage of the MR-T is limited. He stated that there are numerous developable properties not located directly on arterials. Mr. Satterstrom in clarifying an issue stated that staff is not proposing that existing MR-G zoned property is going to be affected by this proposal at all. He stated that what is proposed is the creation ` of another zoning district to give landowners and developers the option of rezoning land to a higher density. Mr. Satterstrom cited the example that if property were zoned MR-D, 10 units per acre,the MR-T zone would represent an increase in density. MR-T is an option that the Council would be given to encourage homeownership in the situations that are intended in the purpose statement and in the criteria. Charles Burridge, 27001 114`h Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that he is involved in several developments in the City of Kent. He stated that he is considering developing several pieces of property in Kent with multifamily and a townhouse project. Mr. Burridge stated that some of the properties have mitigation problems with wetlands where the MR-T would allow townhouse units to be developed surrounding these wetlands. Mr. Burridge stated that requiring locating the condominium sites next to arterial roads would be prohibitive and if allowing for only one entrance would be restrictive. He suggested that staff might look at the feasibility of two or three entryways for a development. Hugh Lieper, 815 Reiten Road, Kent, WA stated that he is a commercial real estate consultant. Mr. Lieper stated that he believes the City has been attempting to accomplish a distinct separation between the concept of condominium and apartment zoning with the creation of the MR-T zone. Mr. Lieper read and submitted a proposal for a new condominium-zoning district for the record as ` Exhibit 2. Mr. Lieper defined this new category as Condominium Townhouse Type Zoning(CTTZ) Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 9 which included allowing for one unit of living space in a two or three story configuration on a maximum of sixteen units per acre. Mr. Lieper stated that a density of 12 units per acre is not affective when working on developing a piece of property and that he favored three story units in order to include construction of garages underneath the townhomes. He felt the 30-foot height restriction limits the workability to construct adequate townhomes. Mr. Lieper stated that the last item in additional standards says that "a condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to the approval of a development permit". He stated that with a condominium you can not record a total plat until construction is complete and the property has been surveyed. Mr. Lieper further stated that an actual survey of each unit and each part of that piece of property has to be recorded and that becomes part of the total conditions that must be met to satisfy the statutes of the state. Paul Morford, Post Office Box 6345, Kent,WA voiced his disappointment in the proposed MR-T zone as it does not lend itself to the creation of affordable housing in Kent. He referred to a development in the City of Des Moines where detached units are currently under construction on 25- foot lots with 15-foot wide units and 5 foot setbacks. Mr. Morford stated that the lots were platted in the 1920's. Mr. Morford stated that the units are expensive but more affordable than a typical single family residence and encouraged staff to look at plans, which he submitted to the Board. Mr. Morford submitted an architectural version of the Marin Grove Community floor plans for the record as Exhibit#3. Mr. Morford stated that in the 1920'the City of Kent based development on small lots, located close to commercial, rail and waters and suggested changing minimum lot widths to 25 feet. Mr. Morford referenced Section 15.08 of the Kent Zoning Code on Nonconforming Lots of Record in saying that an ordinance was passed in the 1950's that stipulated if a property owner owned two lots side by side, the lots had to be combined in order to develop them. He stated that he believes by removing the nonconforming lot, a home could be built on one lot and a townhouse on the adjoining lot. Mr. Morford stated that the original intent of rezoning was to discourage multifamily and encourage condominiums or home ownership and that he feels that the MR-T zone should allow for a higher density to decrease the cost per unit. Mr. Morford suggested redefining the MR-T zone to Townhouse District only so as not to limit zoning to multifamily but rather encourage small townhouse developments. He stated that the staff report refers to the "T district as providing suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily". Mr. Morford suggested striking that statement out and add "it is purposely marked T district to provide suitable locations for residential development where home ownership is encouraged." Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Morford quoted the staff report's definition of a multifamily townhouse dwelling on page four of the report and suggested rephrasing the definition from ". a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit,which is, attached..."to a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which may or may not be is,-attached..." in order to develop unattached units on small lots. Mr. Morford spoke at length on his concerns regarding density limitations within the multifamily residential zoning district. Mr. Morford stated that he would like staff to receive input from Jerry S-r.der of Snyder Homes who built two planned unit developments in the County which have since aen annexed to the City and although they are close to an arterial, access is not from an arterial. Mr. Morford stated that he feels it to be nebulous that this zoning require a townhome development to be located near transit stops and commercial services as well as to require access from an arterial. Mr.Jerry Prowdy,27608 114'Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he believes the new MR- T zoning does not provide enough concessions to encourage multifamily developers to build condominiums. Mr. Prowdy stated that he favors the proposed zoning as it more adequately applies to single family zones with steep slopes or partial wetlands where townhomes could be clustered on lots. Mr. Prowdy stated that he did not favor developers going having to go through the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning process as it is lengthy and would discourage developers from constructing townhomes. Mr. Prowdy questioned if the rezone process could be streamlined and stated that even though the lot sizes and units per acre were conservative, none the less, he is in favor of moving this recommendation on for approval. Mr. Satterstrom stated if a property owner has existing MR-G zoning which allows 16 units per acre, condominiums can be developed in that zone at 16 units per acre and in MR-M zoning, condominiums or apartments can be developed at 23 units per acre. The MR-T zoning does not propose to change that. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff believes that the MR-T zoning constitutes a form of multifamily zone because the density of 12 units per acre is more than would be permitted in any of the City's single family zones. He stated that generally you would not find 12 units per acre in a detached configuration. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the intent of the MR-T zone is to treat it as a multifamily zoning. He stated that the unique feature of the MR-T zone requires that development in that district must provide affordable owner occupied condominiums. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would beseech the Board to not remove the distinction of a multifamily zoning district from the MR-T zone, even though single family could be constructed within this zone. Mr. Satterstrom reiterated the criteria for siting of condominium development. He stated that the MR-T zoning would be applied to property through the rezoning process and if the conditions of the rezone remain consistent with the comprehensive plan, than there would be no need to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Satterstrom stated that direct access to arterial streets is a criteria not a requirement. He stated that the crucial factor in evaluating a proposed rezoned site is to allow the Hearing Examiner and City Council to see that traffic patterns accessing these sites do not generally run through single family areas adversely affecting these neighborhoods. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Communication ensued at length between Mr. Dowell and Mr. Satterstrom concerning changes to the PUD ordinance and if as result, the changes would require a comprehensive plan amendment in September, which Mr. Satterstrom replied in the negative. Mr. Harmon stated that this condominium zoning ordinance has been brought about from the last comprehensive and zoning change requests that were held in October and November of 1998 pertaining to two properties, one on Pacific Highway South and one on East Hill. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board looked at the requests and were informed by the applicants that if a townhouse ordinance was implemented, that the applicants voice interest in constructing a townhome development. Mr. Harmon stated that the rezone requests moved forward to the City Council, the Council looked at them and decided to table the requests because they did not want to deny the applicants the opportunity to build. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board was given direction from the Council Committee members to proceed with establishing a townhouse condominium zoning ordinance, in order to allow the Pacific Highway and East Hill projects to proceed. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if a MR-T zoning district is created, the Council has the option to bring the two amendments that were tabled back for consideration. The Council has the option to approve them as proposed, deny them or apply a new zoning district like the MR-T. Board member Terry Zimmerman stated that she agrees with a number of the speakers that 12 units per acre are not sufficient densities to provide affordable housing. She stated her concurrence with several speakers that a density of 16 units per acre would be appropriate. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 12 Ms. Zimmerman stated that she agrees with Mr. Lieper in that staff needs to consider allowing three story height limitations where garages could be built underneath. She stated that Kent has quite a bit of sloped property that could accommodate a three story high condominium. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she disagrees with the stipulation that condominium sites are required to be located adjacent to or provide direct access to the site from an arterial. She voiced her concern that this condition is generated by City Council concerns that residential neighborhoods will not disapprove of multifamily projects being accessed on their residential streets. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would recommend that the access issue needs to be addressed further either by public process or through Mr. Harris's administrative ability. She stated that a lot of developable property is not directly located on arterial streets. Ms. Zimmerman voiced her opposition to the rezone criteria #2 regarding locating the proposed rezone site near transit stops and commercial services. She stated that this theory is not feasible, as it seems that transit and commercial follow development and not the other way around. Sharon Woodford stated that the MR-T zoning does not seems to apply to MR-G or above, as there is no benefit for higher density. Ms. Woodford questioned if implementing an additional MR-T zone would address incentives for higher density multifamily to encourage them to develop townhouses. Ms. Woodford stated with an additional zoning, you could have a townhouse ordinance for single family residents and one for the higher density multifamily with differing regulations. Ms. Woodford suggested rephrasing the rezone criteria#1 on Page six of the staff report to read"that the proposed rezoned site is adjacent to or has close access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not disrupt single family residential neighborhoods." Ms. Woodford spoke in favor of the concept of allowing for two or three entrances into a development as long as it was no: disruptive. Mr. Dowell stated that citizens, staff and members of the board provided a lot of good information. He questioned if the Board was really ready to move forward with a decision. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that he hoped the Board would not base their decision on the benefit of two pieces of property close to Des Moines as it would not be a fair or justifiable reason. Mr. Dowell stated that he would recommend tabling this issue for further evaluation with staff based on testimony given. He stated that he feels more time is needed to refine a plan that would better address affordable housing. Ron Harmon stated that he had a couple issues, one of which were the additional standards in reference to filing of the condominium plats. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Satterstrom to address this issue. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Satterstrom stated that filing of the condominium plat could be a limitation that may have to be changed. He stated that the City wants to make sure that the condominium plat is indeed filed and that the city is not creating townhouse rental units. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if in conferring with the City Attorney's office the filing of the condominium plat proves to be a limitation, staff may propose that filing occur prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, at which point the project would be built. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff would favor language where the City completes the final sign off of the condominium plat at the time the certificate of occupany is issued. Mr. Satterstrom in addressing the Board's density concerns stated that if 12 units per acre are too limiting in its application, there is nothing to prevent the Board from recommending a secondary type of district. He cautioned the Board that staff feels this district is fine the way it is written. Mr. Harmon voiced concern that a higher density zoning district may be approved by the Board but be denied by the Council as the public seems opposed to more multifamily apartment complexes and structures of that size. Mr. Harmon stated that he supports staff recommendation for 12 units per acre in the MR-T zone. Mr.Harmon stated that a traffic mitigation study is currently in progress regarding the issues of who is going to pay for the new traffic corridors. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility that if developers were allowed to provide access to their condominium sites through existing residential neighborhoods in lieu of being restricted to arterials streets, this could cut cost substantially for developers in not having to pay for road way improvements. Mr. Harmon voiced concern that traffic should not be allowed to travel through single family neighborhoods and propose wording that would indicate this. Mr. Harmon felt that placing a development near transit stops could prove difficult but indicated that locating a development near commercial services was imperative. Mr. Satterstrom proposed rephrasing the additional rezone criteria #1 to say "That the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods." Mr. Harmon acknowledged Mr. Dowell's concern in reference to his desire that the Board should accumulate more information but stated that he felt the Board needs to move on this issue as quickly as possible. Steve Dowell MOVED to table this issue which died for lack of a second. Ron Harmon said that he agrees with the motion as stated with the exception that he would like to see the density remain at 12 units per acre and changed his view from a two story high limitation to Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 14 three story height limitation to provide for a garage underneath. The cut through limitation is acceptable. He felt that locating a development close to transit should be stricken from the motion, and after reconsidemion stated that the rezone criteria "...near commercial services' should additionally be stricken from the motion. Sharon Woodford stated that she disagrees with retaining"...near commercial services"as that leaves a lot to interpretation. She stated that "near" could be defined as three blocks or three miles and would be hard to defend. Ms. Zimmerman spoke at length about studying this issue further. She stated that the Board has previously had the option to bring forward revisions for the PUD. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the Board choice not to address the PUD issues but rather to bring the condominium issue before the Board in order to revisit the PUD issue and study this issue in more depth. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like to address smaller lot sizes as well as infill into the downtown area with single family residents developed on smaller lots. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like the Board to make it their task over the next year to develop affordable housing concepts. Mr. Dowell stated that if the PUD ordinance were brought back for further study, he would vote in favor of implementing the MR-T zoning district. Sharon Woodford stated that she favors sixteen units per acre but believes that it would not pass at City Council at this time, therefore, she will concur with what ever the Board chooses. Sharon Woodford stated that she supports the option for allowing three story condominiums development. She stated that with all the hills in Kent, three-story construction could be accomplished without the development appearing too tall. Ms. Woodford concurred with Mr. Leiper in noting that the location for such zoning shall be completely compatible and in harmony with the surrounding areas citing that if you are in a single story, single family residential area, it would not seem appropriate to build a three story townhouse. Terry Zimmerman stated that she does not support 12 units per acre, but concurred with three story heights. She stated that we have an obligation to pass on to Council the response that we have obtained from the community through the course of the public hearing and she did not hear anyone speak in favor of 12 units per acre. Ron Harmon stated that he would like to see a recommendation proposed tonight that could be passed on to the City Council and approved. He stated that the Board members are appointed and not elected officials. He stated that Planning staff is the Board's ears and eyes and emphasized that Planning staff has as much knowledge in reference to moving this recommendation forward as the developers setting in the audience. Mr. Harmon suggested that the Board look fervently at staff s recommendation. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 15 Fred Satterstrom asked for the Board to clarify if their motion is in favor of the 12 units per acre density and includes the new height limits of three stores restricted solely to townhouse as defined. Ms. Zimmerman concurred. Mr. Satterstrom stated that in terms of changing the language change pertaining to the filing of the Condominium plat and issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Mr. Satterstrom asked if staff could have some latitude with coordinating the timing issue. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staff s recommendation of ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strategies with the additional changes as noted: • That the maximum density units per acre be changed from 12 units per acre to 16 units per acre. • That the height limitations be extended to three stories. • That the underlined language be added to the rezone criteria#1 to read as: "the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has beef convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development deee ftei iravel Areugk minimizes the disruiation to single family residential neighborhoods. " • That the rezone criteria#2 stating"The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services"be struck from the recommendations. • That for legal purposes the following addition be made that filing of the condominium plat should occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of the occupancy permit. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm. _R ectfully Submitted, J es P. Ham Secretary )CITY Of �� fNVICTI► Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT DUNE 28, 1999 TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR-T) #ZCA-99-5 Back round: On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the Land Use and Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning." On Mav 10, 1999 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board (LU&PB) discussed and reviewed the condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were discussed at these workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various condominium developments was conducted with the LU&PB on May 24, 1999 in order to gain a first-hand familiarity with this form of development. Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the LU&PB decided at their June 14, 1999 workshop to move forward to public hearing with one of the options. This option is the creation of a special zoning district that would be restricted to condominium-only multifamily development, subject to specific development regulations, which would determine the density, and certain aspects of the design of these developments. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: The issue of encouraging homeownership opportunities is mentioned in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. In fact, condominium-style housing (one of several forms of homeownership) is addressed in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal H-4 states: "Expand home 220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT. WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)850-5200 ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(N1R-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 2 ownership opportunities for all income groups via land use regulations,financial strategies, and the removal of barriers to lending. " Policy H-4.1 specifically addresses condominiums in terms of zoning when it states: "Revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities. " Zoning Strategies for Encouraging Home Ownership: The City's existing multifamily residential zones do not differentiate between rental or owner housing. Except for PUD development in the SR (Single Family) zones, there is no requirement for condominium-type development in the zoning code, nor is there any zoning district which may be requested by an applicant for rezone which would limit developments to this project type. In addition, the City Attorney has advised the Planning Department that it is not lawful to simply adopt a zoning amendment which would require homeownership (i.e., condominiums) in all multifamily zoning districts. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, condominiums may be encouraged as an alternative to apartments through various zoning methods. These methods were first discussed with the Council Planning and Public Works Committee in March and April and then the Land Use and Planning Board in May and June. Some of the primary alternatives included the following: ■ Contract rezoning. Under this option, approval of a rezone request would be conditioned upon an agreement between the applicant and the City. Among other things, the agreement might contain a statement that only condominiums could be constructed. Therefore, any development permit ultimately issued by the City would constrict development to condominiums only. Decisions of the City Council would be made on a case-by-case basis. ■ Planned Unit Development ordinance. The existing PUD ordinance restricts condominium-type (attached) housing in the SR zones to sites that are more than 100 acres in size. An option would be to reduce this minimum site size to 10 or 5 or even a smaller threshold, resulting in more areas which could, given City Council approval of the PUD, be utilized for attached condominium style housing. ■ Townhouse Zoning District. This option would entail the creation of a special zoning district which would permit only condominium type developments and would require the recording of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a development permit. A maximum density would be specified which could be similar or different from other multifamily zones. The T-zone would be available for applicants to request rezoning of suitable sites with criteria for rezoning set by ordinance. ■ Overlay (or "Incentive") Zoning. This option would allow additional density in existing multifamily zones for condominium developments. Densities for rental apartments would remain the same. As an overlay, it would only be available for existing multifamily zones. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 3 Discussion and Evaluation of Alternatives: The above options were discussed at length by the LU&PB and, with the exception of the T- zone, were found to be unsuitable. While contract rezoning may be a legal method for rezoning and conditioning development, it was found not to be a good way to develop policy. In reality, it is the opposite of consistent and predictable policy since the specific conditions will be different from one site to another. It is subject to "deal-making" and puts the City Council and LU&PB in an awkward position. In addition, recent experience with contract rezoning has not been positive. The overlay zone option (where additional density is allowed for condominiums but not rental apartments) offers only limited advantage in terms of inducing homeownership opportunities. This is because the densities already allowed in the City's MR (multifamily) zones are fairly high. Townhouse condominiums are generally low-density projects, usually in the range of 10- 14 units per acre. Densities in excess of this generally yield "stacked unit" configurations, where residential units are built over one another. Therefore, perhaps only the MR-D (Duplex) zone — where the density limit is 10 units per acre — would attract applications for a condominium density bonus. The Planned Unit Development option was considered by the LU&PB and was determined to need additional study before moving forward to public hearing. As proposed by staff in preliminary discussions, the PUD revisions would be restricted to only the SR-6 and SR-8 zones,the minimum site size would be 2 acres and the maximum site size would be 10 acres. Also, special criteria would be specified for approval of such PUD's, including factors relating to proximity to transit and services, adjacency to arterial streets, and open space. However, following discussions with the LU&PB, it was felt this option needed further study before moving to public hearing. The creation of a special zoning district which would restrict multifamily development to condominium-only was felt to be a viable option for increasing the opportunities for homeownership in Kent, and at their June 14, 1999 workshop, the LU&PB moved this alternative along to public hearing for June 28, 1999. As proposed by staff, this new zoning district would require multifamily development to be condominium-only subject to development standards which would allow a two-story configuration (no stacked units), a density maximum of 12 units per acre, multifamily design review, and other requirements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the LU&PB recommend to the City Council to add the following to Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.03.010 Establishment and designation of districts: MR-T Multifamily Residential District—Townhouse It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where homeownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 4 The following definition of"townhouse" development is proposed to be added to Section 15.02 of the Kent Zoning Code: Multifamilv Townhouse. A townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below. The following uses are proposed as principally permitted, accessory, special and conditional uses in the MR-T zone, Section 15.04 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment A): Principally permitted uses: ■ One single family dwelling per lot • One modular home per lot ■ Duplexes ■ Multifamily Townhouse units ■ Mobile home parks (subject to footnote#13) ■ Group homes class 1-A ■ Group homes class 1-13 ■ Home day care ■ Day care center ■ Crop and tree farming Accessory uses: ■ Rooming and boarding of not more than 3 persons ■ Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use ■ Accessory dwelling units (subject to footnote #10) ■ Home occupations (subject to footnote#11) ■ Storage buildings and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16) ■ Offices incidental to a principally permitted use Conditional uses: ■ Group homes classes 1-C, 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C ■ Drive-in churches, welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or correction ■ Transportation and transit facilities ■ Railway and bus depots, taxi stands ■ Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam, petroleum, etc. • Public facilities. Firehouses, police stations, libraries, and administrative offices of governmental agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools and colleges ■ Open space uses including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses and _ other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith ■ Private clubs, fraternal lodges, etc. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 5 Special uses: ■ Churches (subject to footnote #4) The following Development standards are proposed for the MR-T zone, to be added to Section 15.04.170 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment B): Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 dus/ac MF: 12.0 dus/ac Minimum lot area SF: 4000 sq. ft. Duplex: 8000 sq. ft. MF: 8500 for first 2 units, then 3500 sq. ft. per each additional unit Minimum lot width SF: 40 ft. Duplex: 80 ft. MF: 80 ft. Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote #5) Duplex: 40 % (subject to footnote #5) MF: 45% (subject to footnote#5) Minimum yard requirements SF: Same as MR-G Duplex: Same as MR-G MF: Same as MR-G Height Limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 feet Duplex: 2 stories/30 feet MF: 2 stories/30 feet Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote#19) Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote#19) MF: 70% (subject to footnote #19) Zero Lot Line Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall Apply Signs Same as for MR-G zone Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone Multifamily Design Review Yes. See Section 15.09.047. Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to approval of development permit by the City. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 6 r� The LU&PB may also wish to consider additional rezone criteria, which would provide guidance and direction in the decision-making process for rezone applications. Rezone criteria are specified in Section 15.09.050 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment Q. These criteria seek to ensure that rezones are consistent with the comprehensive plan, are compatible with surrounding development, do not unduly burden the street system, and do not cause adverse impacts to the public. The LU&PB could add criteria to ensure that rezones to MR-T achieve the original intent of creating opportunities for attached homeownership opportunities. Staff suggests the following criteria based on the discussions with Board and Council members regarding this option: 1. The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential neighborhoods. eD 2. The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services. FS.-pm R-Wminitownhome.doc Enclosures: Attachment A,B & C cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director 1 4 ATTACHMENT A Sec. 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. Zoning Districts Key — P=Principally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses c �° C=Conditional Uses d � A=Accessory Uses d m _ 32 C yr _ 7 _ 72 e�i tr tr 2 ¢ rx R 2 a V p _ 4 Cu -C CO O U U V m Te q a to In to to Q _ 32 3 .9 a a a '2 o o' 9 d u w p C7 S U U v v act O rn rn y to ,� (A rn Z t� O w V c c O U < ^ N wf T r4 a? O U a U CU� tea O _ U_ 6 < to N N W to in one single-family dwelling per lot P P P P P P P I P P P P I i P I P ` A(t) A(1)I All)IA(1)I One duple:per lot P One modular home per lot P P P P P P ( P P P P P Duplexes P P P Mun)family dwellings P P P I P I P(4) P P I P P ( C (2)jCrs) P) Q) (1� Multifamily dwellings for senior citkens I PM I P P I 1 1 P(3)I Pal Mobile homes and manufactured homes P Mobie home parks I P P P P P 103) (13) (13) (13) Group homes dais I-A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C C C C P Group homes lass I-B P P P P P P P P C C C C P I Group homes class FC I I C I C I P I P P P P P C C C C P Group homes class 0•A I C C C C I C C C C C C C c C Group homes class 11-8 C C I C I C C C I C C C c C C-1 C Group homes lass II-C I I C C I C C I I C C C C C C C C C Group homes class III I I I I I I C I C I C ( C C C C C C Rebuildlaccessory uses for existing P(6) I I I ( I I I I P(6)I P(6)I NIS)I P(6)I I p(6)I NO I P(6)I p(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6) dwellutgs Transitional housing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pm Pm I I Guest cottages and houses A(6)IAll) A(/) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ia6)I Rooming and boarding of not mono than I ( A ( A A I A A ( A A I A ( A three persons Farm worker accommodations I(� AP)I(IT)( I I I Accessory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A A I A A I A— A A A A I A A A I A I A A I customarily appurtenant to a permitted I (11) I I ( I I I use - I Accessory dwelling units I(A I A A A A I A I A I AIAI A I I I 10 I o I A I t(14) 10) 00) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (t0) ( ) ( ) (10)Accessory tiring guartera A A A A A A A A A A A A (11) (1!) (14) (1�} (u) (14) (14)I(u) (14) (14) (14) (14) Homeoccupations I A I I A A A AIAI A I A I A I A I A ( I i I I (11) 01) (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) (1Q (11) (11) (it) Service buildings I A I I Storage buildings and storage of I All A A A A I A A A I A I A All A I I I I I T-1 recreational vehicles 06) (is) (16) (16)1(16)1(16) (16)I(16)I{16) (16) (16) I i Drtvedn churches: welfare facilities: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Drtvean churches, --Bement homes, I (12} convalescent homes and other welfare I facilities whether privately or publicly f operated, facilities for renabilitation or I I I I I I I I I co I rrection,etc Sec. 15.04.060. Transportation,Public and Utilities Land Uses. Zoning Districts ?rincipally Pemnitted Use Special Use '= c C x Conditional Use °' � , A■Accessory Use 2 c O: V N• 32 LU s or 2 32 33 32 Cc Cc 2 2 Te CL E U. s aL hi m E _ .S f A Q < < N eM cc:T '4 a4 Q c? x a v rt� cue N y 2 U O G i� O G7 Conu mtw parhbhg lots or strucura C C Tm nspodadon and Maid faciNes C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P(I) C Railway and bus depots,Uzi stands C C UtMWd transportation faci0tlss: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Sectrical substations.pumping or regulating devices for the tansmission of WSW, gas,staam.petroleum.etc Public facaMes.Flrehouses,police C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C C C C C C C C C stations,Ilbrarfe and administratNe offices of governmental agencies.primary and secondary schools,vocational schools and colleges. asory uses and buildings A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A(Z) . pmarily apponseant to a pennitled rr , ( J 2� Sec. 15.04.090. Service Land Uses. Zoning Districts Ley P=Principally Permitted Uses S U =S Uses C=Cond'tt)pecial onal Uses 32 s m A=Accessory Uses d ¢ 32 dto A _ A CD _ _ N I C C C m fa �' .92 race 1O eci c 32 Am .Eo C c V c c _ < filla Lo `° c LL- ta_ g x m E p c E 06 a a rn is/] VJ z V V d a S d N �-,Cu T r4 a c? s a ua 2 N CD C tr M 5 5 a' U v U J 2 2 : U N 3 0 <n in in rn cn z U G i' U U i 0 O t� Finance,insurance,red estate services I I ( P P(1) P P P I P P P P P(2) P(3) (12) Personal services:Laundry,dry cleaning; I P P P(12 P I I P P C P(10 P(10 P(2) I P(3) barber,salons;shoe repair launderettes (10) Mortusnes (12 P ( P C P(3) Home day are P P 1 P I P P P P P P P I P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Day are center C 1 C 1 C C C C C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Business services,duplicating and blue i P(Ii P I P P I P P P P P(2) P(3) printing,travel agencies and employment agenda Building maintenance and pest control I 1 I 1 I P I P P P P PM Outdoor Stange(fnduding tmci;,heavy P P A A A A A P equipment and contractor storage yards as allowed by Development Standards Sections 15.01.190 i 15.04210) Rental and leasing services for can, I I I P P P I P P PM trucks,trailers,furniture and tools Auto repair and crashing services I I I I I I I C I P I P P P C(s) (Including body work) Repair services:Watch,TV;eie==; I I I I I I I I I I P P(12 P I I P P I ( P I P I P(Z) I Prn electronic:uphoinery Professional services:Medial;dWo I I ( I I I I I I I I I P ( P I I P P I P I I P P P(2) I PM and other health are related semces Heavy Equipment and Truck Repair I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 P i P I P I I C P ontract Construction Service Offices: P(16 P P P(2) (3) Building construction;plumbing:paving I I I I I ( I I I I I I I IP(167(161IP(17(11(1� P P and landscaping Educational Services: vocational;bade; I I I I I I P I P P P I P I I P I P I P(I)I I P(3) arc'music;dancing:barber and beauty I Churrhas I S(4)1 I s(4)1 S(4)1 S(4)I S(4)i S(4)i S(4)1 S(4)I S(4)I Su)1 I Sur S(4)I I S(4) S(4)1 S(4)I s(4)1 I S(4) SM gtMerLl AAmnixtracve and professional omces- I I I I l I I I P 1121 P I P I C I P I P I P I P I P P(Z) P(J) Munlapel uses Ind buildings I I I I I I ( I I I IP(17 P(13 1 P I P jP(13 P(13)P(13 P(13 (13 (13 PfAA IP(13)�(1 Research.development and testing 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 P P P P (14 Planned Development Retail Sales 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I Gs) Aaessory uses and buildings A A A(T) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A I A 1 cummartty appurtenant to a permitted I I I I I I I ( I (is) (16) (19)I(19) (is)I(10) (it use BOAMing sand breeding I C I I I I I I I I C I I C establishments 1 Veterinary clx.=and veterinary hospitais I I C 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 P(E) I P(9) P(9)1 P(6) C I 1 Adntinistrattie or esacutrva ofllces whlcn I i I I I I I I I I P 1 I I I P P I P an pan of a predominant Industrial operation_ 1 Offices incidental and necessary to the 1 i A A A I I LL conduct of a Dnncipairy permitted use 2� Sec. 15.04.110. Cultural, Entertainment and Recreation Land Uses. Zoning Districts P=Principally Permitted Uses cf S a special Uses c C�Conditional Uses A z Accessory Uses c s r Q' � N _ s r ¢ C c 7 U > > u. tL hL a` x mCL C c N Ix cc 13 7 N S S 3 5 N ,QI G ,Q1 E C W N N C d 61 t0 a aC U N ti N G U Z c U U d v c m O < N r7 T � C9 G C� 2 a U U CGS Uj 2 � N C� O c (, J C7 L) a vim) W Cn cn Cn � Z V O O G U U CU7 O C�7 Performing and cultural arts uses,such P(7) P P P P P ( P I I p(t) as art galleries and studios Historic and monument sites P P Public assembly(indoor):sports faclitla; P P P P PM P(2) P(2) P(t) arena;audltortuirm and exhibition halls bowling alleys.dart playing faciNes, c(I) skating rinks,commwnity dubs;athiedc dubs;recreation centers:thestan (excluding school facilities) public assembly(outdoor):Fairgrounds P P and amusement parks;tennis courts: athisbc fields;rmniabtre gott go-cart tradot;drfvean theaters;dt: h space use:Cemeteries,parks, C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P(6) P(S) P(6) C (r) PM C C C C C C _19rounds,golf courses and other C C C C C recreation tacMaw Including bugdings or structures assodated thin viii h. Employee recreation areas LL A A A A PAvate dubs,frsterrui lodges,etc. C C I C C C C I C I C C I C C C C C C C I C C C lr(C lcic C C C C C Recreational vehicle parks I I I I I I I II C I p Accessory uses and buildings A `I A A A A ( A A I A I A I A I A I I A I A A A A A A I A I A 1 A A I A A ( A IA(I) m I custoanty appurtenant to a permnted use Recreational buddings in MHP I I I i I A 30 tG 0.04.130. Resource Land Uses. Zoning Districts Key P n Principally Permitted Uses S=Special Uses C=Condttionat Uses w - m As Accessory Uses m Q1 ,2 'cc or N 45 cc ]1 E W s s s s s s _ °' a _ 72 r r CL O V ri gr rto i 2 c E h S e � d cr`gi S p N QI G M C C d h N b t1 ip Cm Cc to rn h ti Cn G C7 � S � Z � � CS U m t7 4 N`I ;. T 410 .9 Q P � S r1 V V C� W N CO 'z S V CDV d N N I t�i� vIxi vC�i ctti� ' Z V O G C U Cam] C9 O a �7 Agricultural uses(Inctuding whokaal. I P P P I I J P nurseries and greenhouses) fl Crop and Use farming P P P ➢ P P I P P P P P P P P P P P P storage,manufacturing.Pre L ig and ➢ ( p con"rakn of sortcuttural products(not Inciuding slaughteMg or meat pacidng) Accessory uses and bugd'ings I A A A(1) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A customuity appurtenant to a permuted use ald.stands M)I A(2) Aft) I A(2) 33 �� XT'TAGHMEN-T 8 Sec. 15.04.170. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards. ZoningDistracts A a, a y o Ta s 12 d IsI 32 A _ E E Cr a�i m m a�i or Bor Ex A V To �` m E E E E s m P L D d F g g CD i or w to �n CO ern N P9 T (D ao t1 a tee I w I ZZ N N in 2 2 SF Puplsxl SF Di YF SF MF SF IDupied MF Maximum density: )t dwsc(II 11 dull 2.19 3.63 14M L05 I L71 LTt L77 16 L71 T! I L71 I 40 dwelling units per acre I dusfac duslac dusnc duaiac dutrac dusfec Waist: duslac duslac du &C duslac dueJac Minimum lot area 34.700 1 ac 34.700 16.000 9AN 7,600 5.700 4,000 4.000 6,000 4,000 shoe Um 4,000 I'm0.5001 4,o00 6,000 6.5001 square feet or acres,as sd It so ft so ft sq R ad ft ad R sq ft $o ft sit ft sq ft aq ft 2.500 fig R soft 1.600 sq ft aq ft 900 sq noted so IL 24 R ft(3) n) m Minimum lot width:feet 60 ft 60 It 50 ft 50 ft 50 R 150 R 40 ft 40 ft 60 R 40 ft 30 ft 1 60 R 40 ft J Soft 1 60 ft 40 ft 30 ft 90 ft (4) Maximum site 30% 50% 30% 30% 43% 43% 50% 55% 55% 40% 53% 40% 45% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 50% coverage:percent of (5) (5) (5) (5) M (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) site Minimum yard R21 requirements:feet Front yard 20ft 30 ft 20It left 10ft left loft loft loft loft left loft 20R loft left 20ft loft loft 20ft (6) (7) (6) (6) (6) (6) (61 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) Rl (6) (sl R1 (61 (e) (6) (61 Rl (6) 19) Al f91 m (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Side yard is ft (10) 15 ft 5R 5ft 5R 5ft 5R 5ft 5R 5ft 5R (11) SR 5ft (11) 5R 5R (11) Side yard on flanking 20R 20R loft 10ft tOR left 1011 loft 10ft 10R loft 15R 10R loft 15ft loft 10R 15ft street of a comer lot (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Rear yard 20ft 15 ft 5R 5ft 5ft 5R 5ft 5ft sit 5R btt 20It 5R flit 20R 5ft Eft 20It Additional (12) (13) (121 (14) (14) (14) setbackVilistances (15) (15) {13) between buildings Height limitation:in 2.5 2 stryl 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1 2S 1 2S 2S 2.5 1 2.5 M 3 wW 2.5 L5 3" 2.5 2.5 4 stryl stonesfnot to exceed in wyf 35 ft a" sayl saps sayl sayf I sayer sayer my WO "1 40 R stryf it" 40 It a" stryl 50 ft feet 35 ft (17) 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 R 35 ft 30 ft 30 ft 35 ft 30 ft 35 ft 30 R 35 ft 30 ft 2511 f161 (ta) Maximum impervious 140% 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 75% 71% 70% 75X 70% 75% 70% 75% 70% surface:percent of I (12) (19) I (23) (Z3) (23) (23) a3) (19) (19) 119) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) total parcel area Zero lot line and The pro ro-ons In re c ions 1S11300,310,320,and 330 shall apply. clustering (24) Signs , The spit regiuladws of Chapter ISM shah so*. Offstreet parking The oft-gases parking requina -rd of Chapter 15.05 shall appty. Landscaping The landeeapng rec uuamend of Chapter 1507 SW apply. Mu" mily Transition R31 (2S) Rs) Area Mufti-family design ( (n) R6) R6) review Additional standards Addibonal standards for specik uses an cornained In Chapter 1S06 and chapter 15.09. Rol (20) (21) A-TTACH M FINT G ZONING § 15.09.050 and zoning map amendments may be plywood face generic notice board, to heard by the planning commission and be issued by the city planning depnrt- city council. ment, and as follows: The applicant 2. Amendments to the text of this title shall apply to the city for issuance of may be initiated by resolution of inten- the notice board, and shall deposit tion by the planning commission. with the city planning department the amount of sixty dollars ($60.00). The- 3. Official zoning map amendments (re- applicant shall be responsible for place- zones),including the application of the ment of the notice boards in one (1) "C" suffix, may be initiated by applica- conspicuous place on or adjacent to the tion of one(1)or more owners, or their property which is the subject of the agents, of the property affected by the application at least fourteen (14) days proposed amendment, which shall be prior to the date of the public hearing. made on a form prescribed by the plan- Planning department staff shall post ning department and filed with the laminated notice sheets and vinyl in- planning department. The application formation packets on the board no later shall be submitted at least forty-five than ten(10)days prior to the hearing. (45) days prior to the next regularly Upon return of the notice board in good scheduled public hearing date,and shall condition to the planning department be heard by the hearing examiner by the applicant, forty-five dollars within one hundred (100) days of the ($45.00) of the initial notice board de- date of the application; provided, how- posit shall be refunded to the appli- ever,that this period may be extended cant. in any case for which an environmen- C. Standards and criteria for granting a re- tal impact statement is required. quest for rezone. The following standards B. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall and criteria shall be used by the hearing hold at least one (1) public hearing on any examiner and city council to evaluate a proposed amendment, and shall give notice request for rezone. Such an amendment thereof in at least one(1)publication in the shall only be granted if the city council local newspaper at least ten(10)days prior determines that the request is consistent to the public hearing. with these standards and criteria. 1. Notice shall be given to all property 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with owners within at least two hundred the comprehensive plan. (200)feet and,when determined by the 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent planning director, a greater distance development of the site would be com- from the exterior boundaries of the patible with development in the vicin- property which is the subject of the ity. application. Such notice is to be sent 3. The --reposed rezone will not llydl. ly ten (10) days prior to the public hear- burden the transportation system in ing. The failure of any property owner the vicinity of the property with signif- to receive the notice of hearing will not icant adverse impacts which cannot be invalidate the proceedings. mitigated. 2 Public notices shall be posted in one(1) 4. Circumstances have changed substan- conspicuous place on or adjacent to the tially since the establishment of the property which is the subject of the current zoning district to warrant the application at least ten (10) days prior proposed rezone. to the date of the public hearing. Pub- 5. The proposed rezone will not adverseiy lic notice shall be accomplished through affect the health, safety and general use of a four (4) foot by four (4) foot welfare of the citizens of the city. 1.. 5upp No 18 1288.i A Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: EMERGENCY BACKUP GENERATORS CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Disaster preparedness and Y2K issues prompted the City to advertise a Request for Statement of Qualifications for emergency generator design at City Hall, Police Centennial, Kent Commons and City Shops . ECS Engineering Inc . was selected to do the design. Staff recommends the Council authorize entering into an agreement with ECS Engineering, Inc . for the amount of $210 , 781 . 00 , plus WSST for the Emergency Generator project . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $210 , 781 , plus WSST SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT ON: Councilmember-4 moves, Councilmember seconds to authorize the Mayor to enter into an agreement with ECS Engineering Inc . for $210, 781 . 00, plus Washington State Sales Tax for emergency generator design services at selected City of Kent sites . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7C Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY (WEDFA) - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On June 23 , 1999, the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority approved a resolution relating to the issuance of non-recourse revenue bonds wherein the proceeds would be loaned to Pyramid Plastics, LLC, for the purchase and installation of multimedia packaging manufacturing equipment in the City of Kent . It is a policy of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority to obtain approval of the City within whose planing jurisdiction the proposed industrial development facility lies prior to approval of the issuance of the revenue bonds . The proposed resolution, if passed, would provide the required approval . 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: i Councilmember�)MSA moves, Councilmember seconds to adopt Resolution No. 152 approving the issuance of tax exempt non-recourse economic development revenue bonds by the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority for the purpose of financing the purchase and installation of multimedia packaging manufacturing equipment by Pyramid Plastics, LLC. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, approving the action of the State of Washington Economic Development Finance Authority and the issuance of non-recourse revenue bonds to finance an economic development facility for Pyramid Plastics LLC ("the Company"), and providing for other matters properly relating thereto. WHEREAS, on June 23, 1999, the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority ("WEDFA") had presented to it Resolution No. W- 99-017 (the "Resolution"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, relating to the issuance of non-recourse revenue bonds wherein the proceeds of which would be loaned to the Company for the purchase and installation of multimedia packaging manufacturing equipment (the "Project"), all as authorized by the Economic Development Finance Authority Act of 1989, Ch. 43.163 RCW, as amended (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1999, WEDFA unanimously approved the Resolution; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority not to issue revenue bonds except upon the approval of the county, city or town within whose planning jurisdiction the proposed industrial development facility lies; and 1 Revenue Bonds WHEREAS, the Project lies within the boundaries of the City of Kent, King County, Washington; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Kent City Council (the "Council"), pursuant to the request of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority, does hereby approve the issuance of non-recourse revenue bonds (the "Bonds") by the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority, for the purposes provided in the Act. SECTION 2. The Bonds shall be issued in the aggregate principal sum of not to exceed $1,664,285 pursuant to a Resolution of WEDFA. The proceeds of the Bonds are to be lent to the Company, pursuant to a loan agreement or other appropriate financing agreement, and used for the purpose of equipping the Project, including the necessary appurtenances, located within the boundaries of the City of Kent and to pay certain costs of issuance of the Bonds. SECTION 3. The Bonds shall not constitute an obligation of the State of Washington or of the City of Kent, and no tax funds or revenues of the State of Washington or of the City of Kent shall be used to pay the principal or interest on the Bonds. Neither the faith and credit nor any taxing power of the State of Washington or of the City of Kent shall be pledged to pay the principal or interest on the Bonds. SECTION 4. The City of Kent hereby approves the issuance of Bonds by WEDFA for the purpose of financing the Project as described herein, a qualified project under the Act. SECTION 5. This Resolution is intended to constitute approval of the issuance of revenue bonds within the meaning of the policy of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority. 2 Revenue Bonds SECTION 6. - 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. SECTION 7. — E,ffective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage and approval as provided by law. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of ' 1999. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1999. 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 copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1999. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P.\CivihResolutionvevenue bonds.doc 3 Revenue Bonds RESOLUTION NO. W-99-017 A RESOLUTION OF THE WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TOWARD THE ISSUANCE OF NONRECOURSE ECONO1v11C DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES IN A MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,664,285 AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INDEININIFICATION AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY AND PYRAMID PLASTICS L.L.C. (the "Borrower"). WHEREAS, the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (the "Issuer") is established as a public body corporate and politic, with perpetual corporate succession, constituting an instrumentality of the State of Washington authorized and empowered by the provisions of RCW Chapter 43.163 (the "Act") to issue nonrecourse revenue bonds for the purpose of financing economic development activities as defined in the Act; and WHEREAS, the Borrower has informed the Issuer that it wishes to acquire, construct, equip, and improve the manufacturing facilities to be located in Kent, King County, Washington, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Site"), all of which are located within the territorial limits of the State of Washington, and the Borrower has requested the Issuer to issue nonrecourse revenue bonds!(the "Bonds") as special obligations of the Issuer in a maximum amount not to exceed ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE dollars ($1,664,285) pursuant to the Act to carry into effect the acquisition, construction, equipping, and improving or real and personal property at the Site to be used in the manufacturing facilities of the Borrower, as more fully described in Exhibit A hereto (tile "Project"), to loan the proceeds of the Bonds to finance Project costs, as defined in the Act; and WHEREAS, the Bonds, when -and if issued, would be payable solely out of the special fund or funds established for their repayment and would be secured by a financing document, as defined by the Act; and WHEREAS, a form of agreement designated as an "Indemnification and Compensation Agreement" has been prepared setting forth the respective agreements and undertaking of the Issuer and the Borrower with respect to the Bonds and the Project; and WHEREAS, it is considered necessary and desirable for the best interest of the Issuer that the Indemnification and Compensation Agreement be executed for and on the behalf of the Issuer; and EXHIBIT A 7 WHEREAS, the Indemnification and Compensation Agreement requires the Borrower to pay all reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Issuer in connection with the Bonds or in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Issuer finds that the Project constitutes economic development activities, as defined under the Act; and WHEREAS, it is intended that this resolution shall constitute a declaration of official intent to reimburse Project expenditures within the meaning of Sections 1.103- (8)(T)(a)(5) and 1.150-2 of the Federal Income Tax Regulations. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority as follows: Section 1. It is hereby determined that (a) the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project and their operation as an economic development facility; (b) the issuance of the bonds of the Issuer in one or more series and in a maximum amount not to exceed $1,664,285, to finance costs of the Projects, such total costs to be financed by the Bonds presently estimated to be approximately $1,664,285, and (c) the execution and delivery of such contracts and agreements with the Issuer as are necessary to provide for the payment by the Issuer of amounts sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, together with certain costs of the Issuer, will all be in furtherance of the Act. Section 2. Subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 below, including such other conditions as in the judgement of the Issuer and bond counsel are necessary to insure the validity of the Bonds and the tax-exempt status of the Bonds, it is the intent of the Issuer to proceed toward the issuance and sale of the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as legally binding the Issuer to authorize, issue, or sell the Bonds. Section 3. The authorization, issuance, and sale of the Bonds by the Issuer are subject to the following conditions: (a) the Borrower shall have secured a bond purchase agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") from an Accredited Investor, as such term is defined in 17 CFR 230.501(a), acceptable to the Issuer, for the purchase of the Bonds, (b) the Borrower shall enter into such contracts and loan agreements with the Issuer as shall be necessary to secure payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as when the same shall come due and payable; RPcnl„r1nn Nn W_o9-017 Page 2 of 6 (c) on or before two (2) years from the date hereof(or such later date as shall be mutually satisfactory to the Issuer and the Borrower) the Issuer and the Borrower shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the contracts and agreements referred to in paragraph (b) of this Section 3; (d) the Issuer shall have received a preliminary opinion of bond counsel that, with certain customary exceptions, the Bonds may be issued as tax-exempt obligations pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1996; (e) the Issuer shall have received an allocation of the State ceiling on private activity bonds imposed by Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in an amount equal to the aggregate face amount of the Bonds, and shall have allocated such amount to the Bonds; (f) the Issuer shall have received evidence that the county, city, or town within whose planning jurisdiction the Project lies has approved the Project and the Bonds; and (g) such other conditions as in the judgement of the Issuer and bond counsel are necessary to insure the validity of the Bonds and the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. Section 4. The proper officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized to take such further action as is necessary to carry out the intent and purposes hereof under the terms and conditions stated herein and in compliance with the applicable provisions of law. Section 5. That it is deemed necessary and advisable that the Indemnification and Compensation Agreement be approved and executed for and on behalf of the Issuer. Section 6. That an Indemnification and Compensation Agreement by and between the Issuer and the Borrower be, and the same is hereby, approved and authorized and the Chair of the Issuer is hereby authorized to execute the Indemnification and Compensation Agreement on behalf of the Issuer. Section 7. Each Bond, when and if issued, shall substantially state the following language on the face thereof: THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE ISSUER HEREUNDER SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A DEBT, LIABILITY, OBLIGATION, OR PLEDGE OF THE FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, OR OF ANY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, QUASI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SUBDIVISION, OR AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, OR TO PLEDGE ANY OR ALL OF THE FAITH AND CREDIT OF ANY OF THESE ENTITIES. NEITHER THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE ISSUER, ANY MUNICIPALITY, OR ANY OTHER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, QUASI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SUBDIVISION, OR AGENCY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OR THE INTEREST THEREON. NO TAX FUNDS OR GOVERNMENTAL REVENUE MAY BE USED TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST THEREON. NEITHER ANY OR ALL OF THE FAITH AND CREDIT NOR THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE ISSUER, IF ANY, OR ANY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, QUASI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SUBDIVISION, OR AGENCY THEREOF IS PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OR OF THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS. Section 8. This Resolution shall be effective after its adoption. ADOPTED by the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority this 23rd day of June, 1999. WASHINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY By: Chair Resolution No. W-99-017 Page 4 of 6 EXIIIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE The Project will consist of: Acquisition and installation of indexing machines, welding heads and other shop equipment for the manufacture of multimedia packaging to be located in the company's plant at 18726 East Valley Highway, Kent. i Resolun-ri No W-QO-017 Pace of 6 CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (herein called the "Issuer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 1. That the attached Resolution No. W-99-017 (herein called the "Resolution") is a true and correct copy of a resolution of the Issuer as finally adopted at a regular (special) meeting of the Board of Directors of the Issuer held on the 23rd day of June, 1999, and duly recorded in my office. 2. That said meeting was duly convened and held in all aspects in accordance with law, and, to the extent required by law and the by-laws of the Issuer, due and proper notice of such meeting was given; that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting and a legally sufficient number of members of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution, that all other requirements and proceedings incident to the proper adoption of the Resolution [lave been duly fulfilled, carried out, and otherwise observed; and that I am authorized to execute this certificate. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of June, 1999. Secretary i Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: MILL CREEK INTERURBAN PEDESTRIAN TRAIL BRIDGE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was held on May 25th with eight bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Paul Scalzo in the amount of $63 , 908 . The Engineer' s estimate was $43 , 170 . The Public Works Director recommends that this contract be awarded to Paul Scalzo. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $63 , 908 . 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS : (D36) Project Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: /,�� ]] Councilmember rl "'k- moves, Councilmember {J 6-t k-� seconds that the Mill Creek Interurban Pedestrian Trail Bridge contract be awarded to Paul Scalzo for $63 , 908 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS July 9, 1999 TO: Mayor/Council FROM: Don Wickstrolk RE: Mill Creek Interurban Pedestrian Trail Bridge Bid opening for this project was held on May 25`h with 8 bids received. The apparent low bid was submitted by Paul Scalzo in the amount of $63,908.00. The Engineer's estimate was S43,170.00. The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Paul Scalzo. BID SUMMARY Paul Scalzo 63,908.00 Wespac Construction 68,210.00 Ntercon, Inc. 70,1 10.00 LCI 70,245.00 Western Constructors 84,415.00 Gary Harper Constructor 84,610.00 RJC, Inc. 95,675.00 Southworth � Sons 98,165.00 Engineer's Estimate 43,170.00 MOTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Mill Creek Interurban Pedestrian Trail Bridge contract be awarded to Paul Scalzo for the bid amount of $63,908.00. Kent City Council Meeting Date July 20 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: WEST FENWICK HANDBALL COURTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The West Fenwick Park Handball Court Project was designed to provide the only handball courts in the Kent area and replaces the unsafe handball courts demolished at Garrison Creek Park. The Engineer ' s estimate for the project is $100, 000 . 00 . Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the low bidder for construction of handball courts at West Fenwick Park, as detailed in the bid specifications and plans . 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid opening was July 16, 1999, so the results will be presented during the Council meeting 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 ACT''I`ON: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that a contract for construction of handball courts at West Fenwick Park be awarded to Viler Cap^ for $ /4310 (14/, DISCUSSION: ACTION: C Council Agenda Item No. 8B REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT V W-t-d"k!�Q B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3`30 C . PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE_ D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE /u c E. PARKS COMMITTEE �I,D� �� y ►l� / F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS X � �Y1�lia�L U !cy OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES June 15, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, Tom Brotherton, John Hillman, Roger Lubovich, Sue Viseth, Anh Hoang, Pete Petersen, Bill Fealy, Jeff Lewis, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 3:33PM. There was one added item: Re- Award Bid on Remote Access. Approval of Minutes of June 1, 1999 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of June 1, 1999. Tim Clark asked for a clarification to the minutes of the Election Information Video item to specifically say that format would be to show only those tapes of candidates vulnerable for election going into the Primary. Chair Judy Woods said that in the Primary only the seats for which there are more than two candidates would appear on the ballot. In the event that someone is unopposed, between the Primary and the General Elections those candidates would still be allowed to get their message presented. Operations Director Brent McFall said the resolution states that the video presentation of candidates will be shown for those elections on which their name is appearing on the ballot. That covers the Primary and also covers the situation where someone might be running unopposed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 6/15/99 Finance Director John Hillman presented the vouchers dated June 15, 1999. Tim Clark moved to approve the vouchers. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Riverbend Golf Complex Operational Options Parks Director John Hodgson said that some comparisons had been done with one of the tables in the original report from Economics Research Associates consultants on reducing staffing levels and transferring equipment into equipment rental. A staffing level had to be put together that would allow meeting the needs of maintaining the facility and at the same time meet the expense reduction Goal that was outlined in the consultant's report. The copy of that report shows that over the course of the first few years that goal should be met and course operations should actually come out in the black. The major issue is meeting the revenue expectations which have been dropped drastically from the original proposal by the golf operator back in 1997. Mr. Hodgson handed out comparison tables between current operations and two proposed plans. A staff reduction plan was presented to the Teamsters Union who accepted the proposal and is currently in the process of drawing up the contract language. Staff proposals eliminate two full-time employee positions that are now vacant, and changes one current full-time employee position to a regular benefited part-time position. One of the stipulations of the negotiations was to make sure the reduced-time employee had full-time work in the Parks Department if needed. Another temporary part-time position will basically stay the same. The City is trying to assure staff that those two people will not be impacted through these changes. The three charts show staffing/benefits, equipment, and cash flow for (l.current operations, (2. staff reductions and shifting to a municipal lease program, and (3. staff reductions, shifting to a municipal lease program and transferring some debt. If nothing were done, there would be a negative cash flow Operations Committee Minutes, 6/15/99 2 _ at the end of this year of$182,000. It would take till the year 2003 to have a positive cash flow of $16,000. The second chart shows a positive cash flow of$6,000 at the end of this year and grows substantially over the years to $199,000 by the year 2003. The third chart shows a cash flow of S146,000 at the end of this year, which includes the debt service of$140,000 and the $6,000 shown in chart 2. There are two debt services. One is the buildings and the course itself, and the other is the land. At the end of 2003-2004 the debt service should be paid. Any money not needed for operating expenses will go into the reserve which should grow close to $500,000 by the end of 3 years. There will be some capital requirements, but no major capital improvements will have to be made. Jeff Lewis, current full-time golf course employee whose job would be cut to part-time, said he is happy with the assurances that every opportunity would be made to give him 100% full time work. If not possible, he promised to do everything he could to get that 100% back. He asked that it be put in the negotiations that the positions would be brought back to full-time as soon as the money is there. John Hodgson gave a "hats off' to the golf course crew. He said Kent's golf course is the finest around and it shows the character of the crew that they didn't let this situation get to them. Judy Woods gave a commitment to make every effort to accommodate the employees somewhere else in the Parks Department. Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to full Council the reduction of staffing levels as recommended by the Parks Director/Consultant and to not sell any portion of the golf complex under the direction of the Council unless the City is unable to meet the highest positive revenue benefit within 18 months. The highest revenue option will be implemented by the Mayor/City Staff as recommended by the consultant, Economic Research Associates page 11-7. The Mayor is further authorized to implement the recommendation by the consultant which includes one of the following three: Facility Lease, Management Contract, or Golf Operations Concessions. City operation is only an option if a short-term emergency exists whereby the City must operate the golf course until new management is secured. The Mayor is also granted full authority to administer and manage all provisions of the Riverbend Golf Complex Management agreement with SSMD. If the criteria herein are not met, the City Council will take the necessary actions to ensure proper operation of the golf course by the end of year 2000. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark. Tim Clark clarified that the line "to not sell any portion of the golf complex under the direction of the Council unless..." was not to be interpreted as any unilateral action by the Administration but would require an actual motion authorizing such a thing by the City Council. John Hodgson questioned whether there should be any discussion on transferring any of the debt service, which was not covered in the motion. It was decided to discuss that at a different date. The motion was voted on and carried 3-0. Re-Award Bid on Remote Access Joe Lorenz, Information Systems Network Manager, said that since the Operations Committee approved the Remote Access Purchase and Implementation Agreement, on April 20, 1999, Information Systems had been working with the vendor to come up with a mutual agreement on implementation and support. The agreement fell apart around the integral part of support, which the proposal was to include for a year ongoing. It was concluded that it would be mutually beneficial to move away from this particular vendor and to go with the next lowest bidder. IS consulted with Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker who went over the response and request for quote, and it was decided that it would be easiest to part ways with the previous vendor because the dollar amount and Operations Committee Minutes,6/15/99 3 other ambiguities in the response didn't necessarily constitute legal action. The earlier bid was somewhat less than had been estimated, but this second vendor's bid is still within budget. Tim Clark moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a Remote Access Purchase and Implementation Agreement with Network Computing Architects, Inc. in the amount of $77,221.30, subject to City Attorney approval. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:58PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES June 22, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford, Sharon Hayden, Beth Hislop, Mark Gustafson, Pat Fitzpatrick, Steve Ohlde, Bonnie Kosko, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5:05PM. Approval of Minutes of May 25, 1999 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of May 25, 1999. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. DVVSL Impound Ordinance Assistant City Attorney Pat Fitzpatrick presented the proposed Driving with Suspended License Impound Ordinance. The proposed ordinance repeals the City of Kent's existing towing ordinance and permits police officers to impound vehicles in instances which are not covered by the Model Traffic Ordinance. The ordinance also permits officers to order the impound of vehicles driven by persons who have suspended or revoked licenses. Those who have their vehicles towed would have the right to a hearing to contest the validity of the tow or the amount of towing and storage fees charged by the tow company. A vehicle owner would be able to redeem a vehicle from the tow company only after he or she obtains a valid driver's license and pays towing and storage fees. A private tow company would be used and cars stored in a private lot. Vehicles could be kept for 90 days if the person did not get a valid license. Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the Council approval of the proposed ordinance repealing the current towing ordinance, providing additional circumstances under which an officer may tow a vehicle, and permitting officers to order the impoundment of vehicles driven by persons whose license is suspended or revoked. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Bicvcle Helmet Ordinance Pat Fitzpatrick said the Bicycle Helmet Ordinance would require anybody riding a bicycle in the City of Kent to wear a helmet. Those who promote bike events would have to require participants to wear an approved helmet and all promotional materials would have to include a notice of the helmet requirement. Businesses who rent or lease bicycles would have to provide approved helmets to those that rent or lease bicycles, and businesses that sell bicycle helmets would have to sell only helmets that meet specific safety standards. Sandy Amodt commented on the success of the Bicycle Rodeo that took place on June 121h. 450 helmets were given away. She commended Public Safety Committee Chair Connie Epperly who headed up the Bicycle Rodeo and the Bicycle Safety Task Force on a great job done. Ms. Epperly thanked the Firefighter, Police, and Regional Justice Center unions, along with Brian Dodge for coming up with the money for the helmets. Public Safety Committee, 6/22/99 2 Tom Brotherton asked if there would be signage relating to the helmet ordinance along bike paths. Pat Fitzpatrick said that issue had not been addressed. Connie Epperly recommended Ordinance Signage be added as an item to the Parks Committee agenda. Sande Amodt moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the Council approval of the Bicycle Helmet Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0. Domestic Violence Task Force Sharon Hayden, Chief Prosecutor, gave an update on the Gas Street Station Family Violence Unit. Beginning in December, 1998 several components of the Criminal Justice System that address the issues of family violence including Detectives, Prosecutors, Probation, and Victim and Legal Advocates moved into shared quarters at the Gas Street Station. One advantage of the move is vert cal prosecution protocol to deal with family violence issues, which means that the same people han.Ile all of the cases that fall into that category. That creates more efficiency because familiarity is Bair ed with individuals that are seen repeatedly and staff is trained to focus on that one area. Another ben;fit is the collaboration that occurs between the various arms of the process. Workspaces are cloy e together so issues can be addressed more quickly and easily and the use of resources is much moi e effective. Perpetrators are being held accountable more quickly, and because things are hap)ening faster, the victims are safer. Cooperation has really worked in terms of victim safety and gets ing perpetrators of serious crimes off the street. Bet z Hislop, Family Violence Advocate, said that victim services are greater and much more iml roved since the consolidation, and answers that victims need are now available. Misdemeanors and felonies have been divided out, and whatever the crime, if a victim comes into the office, the felonv detective is right around the corner to answer questions and to provide a copy of the case. Also, the probation officer can be given a copy of the police report so the court gets notified of the new offense. The goal is to get answers as quickly as possible in cases that could be life and death situations and to put a case together so it can go forward without the victim or survivor having to face the perpetrator in court. Staff has become much more efficient and streamlined. Detective Sgt. Mark Gustafson concurred that the effectiveness of the unit has been greatly increased because of the integration of resources. The definition of traditional domestic violence has been expanded to a family violence concept that includes Child Protective Services and child abuse cases. The local prosecutor is very involved because of the child abuse law that requires cases to be sent for a prosecutor's review. Most of those cases are misdemeanors, and prior to integration a lot fell through the cracks. A person could be arrested for a felony while on active probation or community supervision because of a prior prosecuted misdemeanor, and those handling the misdemeanor component would never know about it because they didn't have jurisdiction in the felony case. The ability to coordinate and exchange information to hold the batterer accountable has significantly improved. These new procedures are the start to a true integrated coordinated community response to family violence. The key components for the future will be building databases to share the information that is needed and getting additional staff added to the Family Violence Crimes Team. A detective position will manage what's called Project Red Flag, a method to monitor and track chronic offenders of family violence or incidences of interest. A database is being built based on the prosecutor's statistical database that is kept on all persons charged with incidences of family violence or domestic violence. An alphabetical database is already in existence which will be expanded to include those cases that fall through the cracks. Cases of interest will be included that could be germane to the ability to Public Safety Committee, 6/22/99 3 assess the victim's safety issue. Once that database is built and managed, any individual with five incidences of family violence or incidences of interest will be flagged at the Valley Communications Center. Once the address is flagged, then any emergency responder to that address will be aware of that flag and will give a heightened level of awareness and response. When a fireman goes on a call to a flagged address, a policeman may go along also. Ninetv-day post incident in-home visits will be made and all court warrants vigorously pursued for people involved in family domestic violence. Many warrants go unserved because it takes someone to do the legwork to make sure the information on the person's whereabouts is updated and current. There are currently 24 files of individuals who are involved in red flag. The goal is to reduce the overall family violence incidences and to track and monitor responses to chronic offenders who are the ones data suggests are the most dangerous. Two out of the last seven homicides in Kent have been murder-suicides related to family violence. In most cases of offense, there is a chronic history of not only criminal activity but family violence as well. Tom Brother-ton commented that the statistics show successful prosecution of cases has gone up since the team was put together and there's also better training for officers in collecting evidence, etc. Sandy Amodt asked how a person would find the Family Violence Unit. Beth Hislop said the Family Violence Unit is located at 407 W. Gowe St, Kent, phone number (253) 856-5900. She said there are various outlets where pamphlets of information are available, such as grocery stores and hotels. The Washington State Domestic Violence Hotline is: 1-800-562-6025. The meeting was adjourned at 5:50PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Labor Negotiations