HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/03/1999 w
City of Kent
City Council Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF
loot
x
Mayor Jim White
Counci/members
Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly
Tom Brotherton Judy Woods
Tim Clark Rico Yingling
August 3, 1999
Office of the City Clerk
• CITY OF MAla-JSV
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
V August 3, 1999
r Mayor Jim White Council Chambers
5 :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. Yangzhou Exchange Students
B. Youth Art Winner - Anna Slater
C. Chamber of Commerce Presentation - Freight Mobility
Improvement Team
D. mployee f the Month
�• A&h oral A D-"
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
C. Capital Facility Plan - Set Public Hearing Date
D. 2000 Budget - Set Public Hearing Date
E. Worker Compensation Third Party Administrator
Contract - Authorization
F. 2000-2002 HOME Interlocal Agreement - Authorization
G. Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement
(ICA) - Approval
H. 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain Improvements - Accept as
Complete
I . Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan - Set Public
Hearing Date
J. Street Vacation, SE 272nd Near 132nd Ave
SE - Resolution Setting Public Hearing Date 1 '
K. Street Vacation, Hawley Road - Resolution Settingl.,
Hearing Date
L. Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant Funding -
Acceptance
M. Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant Funding -
Authorization to Enter into Contract Negotiations
N. View Regulations - Ordinance
(continued next page)
• SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED
7 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Condominium (Townhouse) Zoning- Approval
8 . BIDS
A. 1999 Traffic Striping
9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
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) Yangzhou Exchange Students
B) Youth Art Winner - Anna Slater
C) Chamber of Commerce Presentation - Freight Mobility
Improvement Team
D) Employee of the Month
CONSENT CALENDAR
6 . City Council Action:
Councilmember 01W moves, Councilmember W
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved.
Discussion
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
July 20, 1999 .
6B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through July 15 and
paid on July 15, 1999, after auditing by the Operations
Committee on July 20, 1999 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/15/99 219958-220377 $ 597 , 518 . 61
7/15/99 220378-220823 1, 204 , 845 . 76
$1 , 802 , 364 . 37
Approval of checks issued for payroll for July 1 through
July 15 and paid on July 20, 1999 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/20/99 Checks 237114-237501 $ 310, 490 . 04
7/20/99 Advices 82308-82890 864 , 179 . 04
$1, 174 , 669 . 08
Council Agenda
Item No. 6 A-B
Kent, Washington
July 20, 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, Fire Chief
Angelo, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom,
Parks Director Hodgson and Employee Services Director Viseth.
Approximately 25 people were at the meeting.
CHANGES TO Council Meeting. Epperly added Other Business
THE AGENDA Item 7D regarding the time of the Council Meeting
of August 3 , 1999 .
Executive Session. McFall added pending and
potential litigation to the Executive Session.
Consent Calendar Items. McFall made comments
regarding Consent Calendar Items 6E and 6G as
shown in the minutes .
PUBLIC National Night Out. Mayor White read a proclama-
-- COMMUNICATIONS tion noting that it is important that all citizens
of Kent know the value of crime prevention pro-
grams and the impact that citizen participation
can have on reducing crime and drug abuse . He
proclaimed August 3 , 1999, as National Night Out
and encouraged citizens, neighborhoods and
communities to participate . Lt . Woods accepted
the proclamation and noted that at least 14
neighborhoods are participating this year, and
that the City placed 17th nation-wide last year
for a city of this size .
CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through J
CALENDAR be approved as amended. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A)
Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of July 6, 1999 .
PUBLIC WORKS (BIDS - ITEM 8A)
Mill Creek Interurban Pedestrian Trail Bridge.
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 .
1
Kent City Council Minutes July 20, 1999
PUBLIC WORKS The Public Works Director recommends that this
contract be awarded to Paul Scalzo. CLARK MOVED
that the Mill Creek Interurban Pedestrian Trail
Bridge contract be awarded to Paul Scalzo for
$63 , 908 . Woods seconded and the motion carried.
PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J)
Stone Wood Final Plat FSU-97-13 . 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 .
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A)
AMENDMENTS View Regulations Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-99-6 .
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.
Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department noted
that regulations have been in place since 1973
which are meant to regulate the placement of
buildings on hillsides to protect views . He
explained that planning and legal staff has
expressed concerns about some of the existing
provisions of the ordinance . He stated that the
Land Use and Planning Board supported amendments
which would make the regulations more legally
defensible and recommended adding a provision
which would allow some administrative flexibility.
He noted that the Board was concerned about
variances and had recommended that the applicant
post some kind of information showing how high the
building would be, so that other property owners
would be able to see how they would be affected by
the variance prior to the public hearing.
2
Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999
ZONING CODE Upon questions from Councilmembers, O 'Neill
AMENDMENTS explained that the recommendation is to clarify
the height of the complete structure rather than
the height of a story, and that the intent is to
keep the regulatory framework as it has been but
to make it more clear and legally defensible . He
explained that the building height is measured
from the lowest point of the property.
CLARK MOVED to approve the Land Use and Planning
Board' s recommendation to amend the view regula-
tions as outlined in the zoning code amendment,
and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance. Woods seconded. Clark
commended the Land Use and Planning Board for their
efforts. The motion then carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B)
Condominium Zoning Strategies Zoning Code
Amendment ZCA-99-5 . On April 19, 1999, the Public
Works and Planning 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 .
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department
explained that MR-T is multiple-family residential
townhouse, which is similar to MR-G zoning, but
that MR-T allows townhomes only and requires the
filing of a condominium plat prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that the
existing MR-G zone has a height limit of 2 . 5
stories and 401 , while MR-T is proposed at a limit
of 3 stories and 301 . Satterstrom stated that
land owners will have to go through the rezoning
process . He explained that the Land Use and
Planning Board proposed adding one additional
criteria to the existing four, which reads that
"the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has
convenient access to an arterial street to ensure
3
Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999
ZONING CODE that the traffic accessing the MR-T development
AMENDMENTS minimizes the disruption to single family resi-
dential developments" . Satterstrom summarized
that the only thing being proposed is the creation
of a zoning district, and emphasized that no land
is being rezoned to MR-T. He also stated that if
Council wants to adopt MR-T zoning, it must be
done soon in order to be available for the 1999
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process . Clark
voiced concern about changing from 2 . 5 stories to
3 stories, and Satterstrom said the Board seemed
to feel 3 stories with a garage on the main
level is acceptable . Upon Brotherton' s question,
Satterstrom said that most are general conditional
uses such as utility substations which are allowed
in all zoning districts; he said if the Council
ultimately wants to replace the MR-G zone with
MR-T, he would recommend that the uses shown
remain in tact; and he noted that if a single-
family residence and a townhome were on one piece
of MR-T property, the density would probably be
proportionate.
Upon Orr' s question, the City Attorney noted that
an ordinance would have to be passed in August in
order -to meet the September 1 filing deadline for
Comprehensive Plan review. He added that the
ordinance would be effective five days after
publication. Satterstrom explained for Orr that
condominiums can now be built on land currently
zoned multi-family, and that language saying one
of the three stories is to be a garage could be
added. Orr asked whether the potential for
rezones could be restricted; Satterstrom said the
intention is to create opportunities for home
ownership, not to convert single-family lands to
multiple-family.
Mayor White stated that this proposal does not
get at the issue of multi-family housing, and
asked why a condominium zone cannot be created
which includes property now zoned for apartments .
Satterstrom explained that there are legal
ramifications in requiring condominiums only in
all multiple-family zones, and that there is an
4
T Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999
ZONING CODE option to have the city apply MR-T zoning to
AMENDMENTS vacant lands .
Orr suggested including something in the ordinance
which would allow buildings taller than three
stories in the downtown area to promote some resi-
dential densities, especially in light of the
transit station and so forth. Satterstrom
explained that zoning regulations in the downtown
area currently have very few restrictions on
residential development, and that taller buildings
could be built . Amodt stated that taller build-
ings would be good in one sense, but that traffic
congestion must be taken into consideration.
Epperly stated that apartments create traffic
problems, but condominiums do not because they are
owner-occupied. She said she prefers to encourage
townhomes, and said they would not need to be
restricted to being next to an arterial . Upon
Yingling' s question, Satterstrom stated that the
MR-T approach, along with other things, will
provide an incentive for affordable, owner-
occupied housing. He added that there are enough
safeguards that it will not create frivolous
applications .
Woods stated that this is a step in the right
direction, and expressed appreciation to the Land
Use and Planning Board. . She asked how condominium
owners would be classified in the Planning
Department data; Mayor White asked that condo-
minium owners be differentiated. Harris noted
that state and U.S . census statistics consider
more than five units in one building multi-family,
but agreed to differentiate in local statistics .
Satterstrom noted for Yingling that comprehensive
plan amendments and rezones are now processed
concurrently, and that 8500 sq. ft . is required in
order to have a lot large enough to develop two
units .
CLARK MOVED to refer this issue to the Public
Works and Planning Committee . Brotherton seconded
and the motion carried.
5
Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
DEPARTMENT King County EMS Regional Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement. 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 which 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 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
Justice Department Grant For Emergency
Preparedness Equipment. 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 equip-
ment to some local response agencies . The King
County Office of Emergency Management has been
designated Grant Manager for this project . The
equipment provided is considered part of the
mutual aid resources available under the mutual
6
Kent City Council Minutes July 20, 1999
FIRE aid agreements already in place among fire, EMS,
DEPARTMENT hazardous materials service providers and law
enforcement .
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
DEPARTMENT Laptop Computers Purchase. APPROVAL of the
purchase of twenty laptop computers from Datec,
Inc . to be used as Mobile Data Terminals (MDT ' s) .
This includes two FDD cables for a floppy disk, as
well as two CD Roms, which will simplify program-
ming and maintenance.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I)
Donation to Police Volunteers. 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 .
PARKS & (BIDS - ITEM 83)
RECREATION West Fenwick Handball Courts . The West Fenwick
Park Handball Court Project was designed to pro-
vide 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 specifi-
cations and plans .
Hodgson noted that two bids were received and that
the low bidder was Mer-Con Construction in the
amount of $143 , 641 . 00 . Although higher than the
estimate, he recommended adoption. WOODS MOVED
that the West Fenwick Handball Court construction
project be awarded to Mer-Con Construction for
$143 , 641 . 00 plus Washington State Sales Tax.
Epperly seconded and the motion carried.
EMPLOYEE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
SERVICES Permit Process Additional Staff. APPROVAL and
AUTHORIZATION to amend the 1999 Budget in the
amount of $397, 079 to add a total of 13 positions,
as recommended by the Operations Committee.
7
Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999 —
EMPLOYEE In order to implement the recommendations con-
SERVICES tained in the Zucker report with respect to
shortening response times for issuance of develop-
ment 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 .
McFall clarified that 13 positions had been
requested and approved by the Committee .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM GF)
Technical Staff Positions. Furniture & Rental
Fees. 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 .
FACILITIES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C)
Emergency Backup Generators Contract 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 Washington State Sales Tax for the Emergency
Generator project .
Upon Brotherton' s question, Hodgson explained what
ECS Engineering would be doing on the project, and
noted that they are experts in this type of work.
WOODS MOVED 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 . Epperly seconded and the
motion carried.
8
Kent City Council Minutes July 20, 1999
ECONOMIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7D)
DEVELOPMENT Washington Economic Development Finance Authority
(WEDFA) . 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 planning 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 .
McFall explained that this is a way of lending the
credit worthiness of the government and therefore
reduced interest rates for economic development
purposes . He added that these are non-recourse
bonds and that the indebtedness lies totally with
the private corporation. He then recommended
adoption of the resolution.
WOODS MOVED to adopt Resolution No . 1547 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. Orr seconded and the
motion carried.
COUNCIL (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7E)
(ADDED ITEM)
Council Meeting Change. Epperly said it is
important for the Council to support the Police
Department and citizens by attending National
Night Out . SHE MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3468
changing the time of the regularly scheduled
Council meeting of August 3 , 1999, from 7 : 00 p.m.
to 5 : 00 p.m. effective only for that Council
meeting; except to the extent it affects the City
9
Kent City Council Minutes July 20, 1999
COUNCIL Council ' s August 3 , 1999 meeting this ordinance
does not amend Section 2 . 01 . 020 of the Kent City
Code . Woods seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 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
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G)
CLID 340 & 349 Bond Sales. APPROVAL of Ordinance
No. 3467 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, as recommended by the Operations
Committee at their July 6th meeting. The bond
sales are for street construction on 196th Street
and for installation of sewers on SE 223rd Street
NE.
McFall pointed out that the ordinance has been
revised by the addition of a fourth column
indicating the terms of the bonds . He added that
the estimated average coupon rate is 5 . 5784 on the
bond sale.
REPORTS Council President. Orr noted that since the
Council meeting of August 3rd will begin at
5 : 00 p.m. , there will be no workshop that night .
10
,f
-- Kent City Council Minutes July 20 , 1999
REPORTS Operations Committee. Woods noted that the next
meeting will be held at 3 : 30 p .m. on August 3rd.
Public Safety Committee. Epperly stated that the
next meeting will be at 5 : 00 p.m-. on July 27th.
Public Works/Planning Committee. Clark distri-
buted copies of a letter from the King County
Department of Transportation recruiting members to
serve on a new transit advisory committee. He
noted that the deadline to apply is August 6th.
Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Parks
Committee will not meet at its regular time in
August, and that it may meet on August 3rd or at a
special time. Mayor White urged anyone interested
in serving on the Arts Commission to provide a
letter of interest .
Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Council
of an executive session of approximately 20
minutes to discuss labor negotiations and pending
and potential litigation.
EXECUTIVE The meeting recessed to executive session at
SESSION 8 : 15 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 9 : 00 p.m.
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
11
7.
Kent City Council Meeting
t Date August 3 , 1999
f , Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN - SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set August 17 , 1999 for the Capital
Facility Plan public hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY•
(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. 6C
Kent City Council Meeting
r, Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 2000 BUDGET - SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set August 17, 1999 for the 2000 Annual
Operating Budget public hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(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. 6D
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: WORKER COMPENSATION THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their July 20th meeting, authorization for the
Mayor to enter into an 18 month contract with Johnston &
Culberson, Inc . to provide administration services for Worker
Compensation claims and loss control services .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Risk Manager Hills and copy of contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $32 , 050 in 199 and $43 , 495 in 100
SOURCE OF FUNDS : Worker Compensation Self-Insurance Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6E
memorandum
Date: July 13, 1999
To: Operations Committee
Thru: Sue Viseth, Director, Employee Services
From: Chris Hills, Risk Manager
RE: Contract for Worker Compensation Third-Parry Administration Contract with Johnston&
Culberson, Inc.
Background:
From July l of 1979, City of Kent Worker Compensation claims have been administered by Scott Wetzel
Services, Inc., under the direction of the Risk Management Division of the Employee Services
Department. In mid-November of 1998, Risk Management was notified that Scott Wetzel Services had
filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy(total and immediate liquidation of all assets to pay creditors).
Scott Wetzel was purchased by Ward North America in December, 1998. Recognizing the late date of
notice, Chris Hills was able to negotiate 2 separate three-month continuation agreements with Ward to
maintain Third-Party Administration services for the City on an interim basis. This allowed time for an
RFP process which included interviews of the 3 top firms based on review of the proposals presented. The
selection panel unanimously choose Johnston&Culberson, Inc. (JCI) of Seattle to provide these important
services for the City
Process:
This change will allow for a full review of the City's Worker Compensation program by both Risk
Management and JCI(who have many municipal clients). The review will emphasize evaluating our
historical injury data,developing a comprehensive loss control plan and sharing the plan with Department
Directors, managers,supervisors and staff.
Budget:
The Worker Compensation Fund is adequately funded to pay this contract including an expense
unanticipated in the 1999 budget which represents the cost JCI will charge per claim for our currently open
worker comp claims which will be approximately$9,000 split into 2 quarterly payments.
Recommended Action:
Johnston& Culberson, Inc. is clearly the best provider of Worker Compensation Third-Party
administration services based upon the unanimous recommendation of the RFP selection committee.
Motion:
Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract,already approved by the City Attorney, with Johnston&
Culberson, Inc.,to provide of Worker Compensation Third-Party administration services for the City of
Kent.
THIRD-PARTY ADMINISTRATOR SERVICES
CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND
JOHNSTON & CULBERSON, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Kent, a Washington municipal
corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and Johnston & Culberson, Inc. organized under the laws of the
State of Washington, located and doing business at 3500 Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Seattle,
WA 93101 (hereinafter the "TPA").
Recitals
1. The City desires that the TPA perform services necessary to provide Worker
Compensation Claims Administration Services for the Risk Management Division of the Employee
Services Department.
2. The TPA agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the Scope of
Work attached as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and
between the parties as follows:
I. Description of Work
TPA shall perform all work as described in Exhibit A. The services furnished under this agreement
will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time
such services are performed.
II. Payment
A. The City shall pay the TPA, based on Worker Compensation claims processed at the
billing rates delineated in Exhibit B.
ICI contract.doc t July 14, 1999
B. The TPA shall submit quarterly payment invoices (based on pre-agreed estimates of
Worker Compensation claims volume) to the City prior to services having been
performed. A reconciliation will be performed by TPA after calendar year-end to
r
reconcile actual costs with previously estimated quarterly costs. Credits shall be
carried forward to the next quarter and defict amounts will be invoiced to the City.
The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within forty-five (45) days of
receipt. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify the
TPA of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that
portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every
effort to settle the disputed portion.
C. In the event the Scope of Work (Exhibit A) is modified or changed so that more or
less work or time is required by the TPA, and such modification is reached by
mutual agreement of the parties to this contract, the payment for services amount
shall be adjusted accordingly upon agreement of the parties.
III. Relationship of Parties
The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this
Agreement. As TPA is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which
encompasses the specific service provided to the City, no agent, employee, representative or sub-
contractor of TPA shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, representative or sub-
contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, TPA is an independent contractor with the
ability to control and direct the performance and details of the work, the City being interested only
in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the benefits provided by the City to its
employees, including, but not limited to, compensation, insurance, and unemployment insurance are
available from the City to the employees, agents, representatives, or sub-contractors of the TPA.
TPA will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of TPA's agents, employees,
representatives and sub-contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may,
during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or
similar work.
JC1 contrract.doc 2 July 14, 1999
IV. Duration of Contract
The City and TPA agree that this contract shall be effective on July 1, 1999 and shall remain in
force through December 31, 2000. At the end of that time, the City shall have an option to renew
this contract for 2 additional 1 year periods.
V. Place of Work
The TPA shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Seattle,
Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take
place at the City's offices at 400 West Gowe, Kent, Washington, or at locations mutually agreed
upon by the parties.
VI. Termination
A. Termination of Agreement
This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause upon sixty days'
written notice, in which event all finished or unfinished documents, reports, or other
material or work of Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to City,
and Contractor shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation at the rates set
forth in Exhibit B for any satisfactory work completed prior to the date of
termination.
B. Rights Upon Termination
In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the TPA
to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the
City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within
the TPA's possession pertaining to this contract which may be used by the City
without restriction.
VII. Discrimination
In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub-contract
hereunder, the TPA, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such TPA or sub-
contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or the presence of any
sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and
available to perform the work to which the employment relates.
JCI contract.doc 3 July 14, 1999
VIII. Indemnification
A. Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, employees and
agents from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way
resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, its officers, employees and agents in
performing this Agreement.
B. City shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless Contractor, its officers, employees and
agents from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way
resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of City, its officers, employees or agents in
performing this Agreement.
IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE TPA'S WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
IX. Insurance
The TPA shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the TPA, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-TPAs or
sub-contractors.
Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the TPA shall provide a
Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
1. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less
than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for
personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be
limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage;
and employer's liability; and
IC! contract.doc 4 July 14, 1999
2. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit
per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the TPA.
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance
policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the TPA and a copy of the endorsement
naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City
reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies.
The TPA's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall
apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
The TPA's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City shall be given
thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation,
suspension or material change in coverage.
Y. Exchange of Information
The parties agree that the TPA will notify the City of any inaccuracies in the information provided
by the City as may be discovered in the process of performing the work, and that the City is entitled
to rely upon any information supplied by the TPA which results as a product of this Agreement.
XI. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents
Original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall belong to
and become the property of the City. All written information submitted by the City to the TPA in
connection with the services performed by the TPA under this Agreement will be safeguarded by
the TPA to at least the same extent as the TPA safeguards like information relating to its own
business. If such information is publicly available or is already in TPA's possession or known to it,
or is rightfully obtained by the TPA from third parties, TPA shall bear no responsibility for its
disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise.
All data, documents and files created by TPA under this Agreement may be stored at TPA's office
in Seattle, Washington. TPA shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon
JCl contract.doc 5 July 14. 1999
its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary
until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate
copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost.
Any use or reuse of the documents, data and files created by TPA for the City on this project by
anyone other than TPA on any other project shall be without liability or legal exposure to TPA.
XII. Recyclable Materials
Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and TPAs to use
recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for
any designated recycled product.
XIII. City's Right of Inspection
Even though TPA is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the
performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the
approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure the
satisfactory completion thereof. The TPA agrees to comply with all federal, state, and municipal
laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to TPA's
business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing
out of the performance of such operations.
XIV. TPA to Maintain Records to Support Independent Contractor Status
On the effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), TPA shall:
A. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of
business TPA conducts;
B. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other
necessary state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by
employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State of
Washington; and
C. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and
expenses of TPA's business, all as described in the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) Section 51.08.195, as required to show that the services performed by TPA
JC?contract.doc 6 July 14. 1999
under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship
between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance.
XV. Work Performed at TPA's Risk
TPA shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees,
agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the work hereunder and shall utilize all protection
necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at TPA's own risk, and TPA shall be responsible
for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with
the work.
XVI. Non-Waiver of Breach
The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements
contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be
construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
XVII. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law
Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in
this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the City, and the City shall determine the term or
provision's true intent or meaning. The City shall also decide all questions which may arise
between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of the performance
hereunder.
If any dispute arises between the City and TPA under any of the provisions of this Agreement
which cannot be resolved by the City's determination in a reasonable time, or if TPA does not agree
with the City's decision on the disputed matter,jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be filed
in King County Superior Court, Regional Justice Center, King County, Washington.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to compensation for all legal costs and attorney's
fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit, in addition to any other recovery or
award provided by law; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the
City's right to indemnification under Section VIII of this agreement.
JCI contract.doc 7 July 14, 1999
XVIII. Written Notice
All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on
the signature page of the agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder
shall become effective upon the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed
sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other
address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
XIX. Assignment
Any assignment of this Agreement by the TPA without the written consent of the City shall be void.
If the City shall give its consent to any assignment, the terms of this agreement shall continue in full
force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without the City's consent.
XX. Modification
No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding
unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and TPA.
XXI. Entire Agreement
The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto,
shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and
such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or
altering in any manner this Agreement. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to
the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto. All
of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement
document as fully as if the same were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits
to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall prevail.
[Signatures on following page.]
JC[ contract.doc 8 July la, 1999
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement.
TPA THE CITY OF KENT
By By
Its Its
DATE: DATE:
Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to:
TPA Ms. Sue Viseth.
Employee Services Director
The City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
(253) 856-5276/fax (253) 856-6270
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Kent City Attorney City Clerk
Xf cowract.doc 9 July 14, 1999
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
1) Process workers compensation claims in accordance with State of Washington regulations for
self-insured employers.
2) Maintain all documents related to claims.
3) Provide statistical services, On-Line Access System, LINQ software user manual and access to
the City's claims database to perform the following inquiries and functions:
a) Claim inquiry
b) Payment inquired
c) Data download
d) Electronic mail messaging
4) Provide loss control services, including but not limited to:
a) Advice and consultation on a regular basis, including safety inspections, safety committee
involvement, supervisory training, noise level surveys, industrial hygiene testing, and
recommendations on the use of personal protective equipment.
b) Providing information relating to specific safety topics as appropriate.
c) Loss Control Audits.
d) Assistance in implementing Employer Loss Control Programs.
JCl mitract.doc 10 July 14, 1999
Exhibit B
Fee Schedule
Fees
1) One time charge (estimated at $8,950) for takeover of currently open claims:
a) $300/indemnity claim
b) $50/medical only claim
2) Ongoing claims administration, financial and statistical information,
customer on-line access, and client services:
a). For 1999, estimated fee of$15,625, adjusted to reflect actual claim
experience at$750/indemnity claim and $125/medical only claim
b) For 2000, estimated fee of$32,220, adjusted to reflect actual claim
experience at$773/indemnity claim and $129/medical only claim
c) Administrative fee of$750, in 1999, and$1,500 in 2000, billed
quarterly in advance.
3) Loss control services:
a) For July 1,1999 to December 31, 1999 - $3,995 for an expected level of
service of 47 hours.
b) For January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 - $9,775 for an expected level
of service of 115 hours.
4) Archive claim storage and retrieval fees billed to employer at actual cost.
5) Materials, lab fees, and other incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of loss
control services billed to employer at actual cost.
Provisions:
1) Fees for takeover of existing claims will be billed one half in the 3rd quarter of 1999 and one
half in the 4th quarter of 1999.
2) Claims service fees will be billed quarterly in advance based on the estimate of claims to be
handled for the year. An annual adjustment to claims service fees will be made to reflect actual
number of claims handled during the year.
3) Loss control services will be billed quarterly in advance based on expectations for level of
service noted above. Additional services requested by the City will be billed at $85/hour.
4) Service charge of 1.5%per month (18% per annum) will be applied to all outstanding invoices
sixty (60) days after date of invoice.
JCI contract.doc I I July 12, 1999
� T
n
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 2000-2002 HOME INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the 2000-2002 HOME
Interlocal Cooperative Agreement and authorization for the
Mayor to sign the agreement and forward it to King County.
r 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 8/3/99, summary of changes and agreement
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works and 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6F
CITY OF LW"L1_Ei!12T �l
Planning Department (253)856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM Jim White, Mayor
rH V ICTA
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KATHERIN JOHNSON, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: 2000—2002 HOME INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ICA)
Background
The current three year HOME Interlocal Cooperative Agreement (ICA) with King County expires at
the end of 1999. It is necessary for the City to enter into a new agreement for the King County
HOME Consortium for the years 2000—2002 (Copy is attached).
The agreement governs the City's participation with the County and other King County cities in the
distribution of federal HOME funds. King County receives these funds under the federal HOME
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. These funds are available for distribution throughout the
County for projects, which provide permanent affordable housing for low-income families and
individuals.
Since King County administers the HOME Program, with no separate funds for this Program coming
individually to the member cities, the ICA is very short and straightforward.
City of Kent Housing & Human Services Staff are members of the HOME Working Group and
participate in the drafting of policies, review of application and recommendations for HOME funding.
Our participation helps ensure that South King County captures its share of HOME dollars for
affordable housing.
The new ICA has only minor changes from the current agreement:
1) Language to clarify appointments to the Joint Recommendation Committee and
2) Term of agreement provides for an automatic renewal of the three-year agreement upon
written notice.
The City's approval of the HOME ICA needs to be forwarded to King County by August 4, 1999.
Recommended Action
Approval of the 2000 — 2002 HOME Interlocal Cooperative Agreement, and authorization for the
Mayor to sign this Agreement and forward to King County.
KJ1pm1PUBLIC1Human ServiceslCDBG1HOMEICAJW.doc
enc: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Katherin Johnson,Human Services Manager
Carolyn Sundvall,Planner
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements
for 2000-2002
Two Revisions to HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
1. Appointments to JRC: Corrects misleading statement about Suburban Cities
Association, which has always appointed only the eight CDBG+HOME cities to the
JRC (four regulars and four alternates) and not the two HOME-only cities. These two
cities—Bellevue and Auburn—automatically rotate membership on the JRC, and are
not appointed by the SCA. In addition, gives County Executive the option of
appointing a citizen representative of unincorporated King County as one of the four
County representatives (the number of county representatives does not change).
2. Term of agreement: Provides for automatic renewal of the 3-year agreement, upon
written notice to participating jurisdictions that they have the option to amend or opt
out.
Five Changes to CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
1. The obligation of county staff to provide timely information to Consortium partners
and allow time for response before making recommendations to the JRC, is clearly
stated. Similarly,the responsibility of county staff to get contracts out in a timely
fashion is clearly stated.
2. There is now a"grandfather"clause, which would allow cities that previously
received a Pass-through to continue receiving one even if they fall below the
threshold in future years.
3. All references to Pass-through cities doing their own local strategic plans or local
program policies are eliminated, since we are making this optional under our new
approach to the Consolidated plan. For consistency, this necessitated some changes
in what the consortium expects of new Pass-through cities.
4. Appointments to JRC—see HOME changes, above.
5. Term of agreement--see HOME changes, above.
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between King County,an urban county pursuant to 24
CFR Subpart 92.101 and Subpart 570.3;hereinafter referred to as the"County,"and the City of
hereinafter referred to as the"City,"said parties to the Agreement each
being a unit of general local government of the State of Washington.
RFr'ITAi S
WHEREAS,a unit of general local goverment that is included in an urban county may be
part of a HOME consortium only through the urban county;and
WHEREAS,a metropolitan city or an urban county may be part of a consortium;and
WHEREAS,the City and King County agree that it is mutually desirable and beneficial to
enter into a consortium arrangement pursuant to and authorized by 24 CFR Part 92 and 42 USC§
12746 for purposes of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program,hereinafter referred to as
"HOME Program";
NOW,THEREFORE,IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN,IT IS AGREED THAT:
1. This Agreement is made pursuant to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990,as
amended,42 USC§ 12701 et. seq.(the"Act")and RCW 39.34,the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act.
2. The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or assist in undertaking
HOME Program housing assistance activities which are eligible under 24 CFR Part 92.
3. The County is hereby authorized to act as the representative member on behalfof the
Consortium for the purposes of the HOME Program. The County agrees to assume overall.
responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance
with federal requirements and the housing objectives of the City and the County as adopted in
the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan(Consolidated H&CD Plan). The
City agrees to cooperate fully with the County in the development and preparation of the
Consolidated H&CD Plan,and to prepare and provide those elements specifically pertaining to
the City.
4. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the period necessary to plan
and cant'out all activities that will be funded froMHOME funds awarded for the 2000,2001,
and 2002 federal fiscal years,the three-year qualification period that coincides with the
Agreement for the Distribution and Administration of Community Development Block Grant,or
until the County's designation as a participating HOME jurisdiction or an urban county is
rescinded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,whichever is
shorter. This agreement will be automatically renewed for participation in successive three-year
qualification periods,unless the county or the city provides written notice it elects not to
participate in the new qualification period. Such written notice shall be given by the date set
forth in an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable to subsequent three-year qualification
periods and provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
5. The city and the county agree to adopt any amendments to the agreement
incorporating changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in
an Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification
period,and to submit such amendment to the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such
qualification period.
6. During the term of this Agreement,neither the County nor the City may withdraw
from participation from their respective obligations under this Agreement.
7. By executing the HOME Agreement,the City understands that it may not participate
in a HOME consortium except through the urban county,regardless of whether the urban county
receives a HOME formula allocation.
8. This Agreement shall be executed in three counterparts,each of which shall be
deemed an original,by the chief executive officers of the County and the City,pursuant to the
authority granted them by their respective governing bodies. One of the signed counterparts,
accompanied by copies of the authorizing resolutions from the County and the City,shall be filed
by the County with the Region X office of HUD. A copy shall be filed with the Secretary of
State and the Clerk of the King County Council,the County Auditor,and the City pursuant to
RCW 39.34.040.
9. The County and the City both hereby agree to affirmatively further fair housing.
10. Joint Recommendations Committee Composition. The Committee shall be composed
of four County representatives and five Cities representatives. The four County representatives
may be Department Directors or their designees.and/or citizen representatives of unincorporated
communities.County representatives shall be specified in writing and should,where possible;be
the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. Five participating city representatives
and their alternates will include city planning directors of comparable level stall'',or elected
officials. Two city representatives and their alternates will be from the northeast region of the
County and two city representatives and their alternates will be from the south region of the
County. An additional revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the
HOME-only Cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting,except
on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-elated funds
(excluding Community Development Block Grant).
11. Appointments. The King County Executive shall appoint the County representatives.
The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different jurisdictions,four to serve as
members and four as alternates,which in turn,will assign representatives to this Committee.
Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small city
representative. The revolving HOME position will be appointed annually by the respective
jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing
authorities.
12. The Joint Recommendations Committee will adopt HOME program policies,
consistent with the Consolidated H&CD Plan,developed by the City and County staff working
group. The Joint Recommendations Committee will approve funding decisions. All funding
decisions must be in accord with adopted policies. Once the policies are adopted,the City,as a
representative member of the Consortium,shall also have the right to comment on any program
changes prior to their implementation by the County.
13. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Joint Recommendations Committee shall
be chosen from among the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a
term of one year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members
will constitute a quorum.
14. The City shall participate jointly with the County in the development of the
Consortium's HOME Program by participating in development of a HOME Program strategy
sufficient to accommodate both the collective and individual housing objectives contained within
local comprehensive plans or other adopted plans of both the City and the County.
15. Federal HOME funds,allocated to the Consortium,shall be used to fund housing
assistance activities that are the subject of this Agreement. The City and the County shall
cooperate in the establishment of budgets for separate HOME activities.The County intends to
enter into contractual agreements with any city,nonprofit organization,or other entity that it
selects to implement HOME activities. The County's administrative costs will be paid from the
HOME grant,after review and approval by the Joint Recommendations Committee.
16. This agreement applies to the Consortium's acceptance of other federal
housing-related funds which may be allocated by formula to the Consortium. Allocation
decisions for these funds will be subject to policies and procedures developed by the City and
County staff working group and adopted by the Joint Recommendations Committee.
This Agreement is legally binding and valid upon signature of all parties.
CITY OF KING COUNTY
Signature of Chief Executive Officer for Ron Sims,County Executive
Name and Title(printed)
Date: Date:
h:\users\ica\97-99hm.doc
It TO
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT (ICA) - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the 2000-2002 Community
Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement, and authorization
for the Mayor to sign this agreement and forward it to King
County.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo dated 8/3/99, summary of changes and agreement
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works and 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6G
CITY OF JS•J y
Jim White, Mayor
�NVIC'fA
Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 3, 1999
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KATHERIN JOHNSON, HUMAN SERVICES MANAGER
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(ICA) FOR YEARS 2000—2002
Background
Recently the Seattle office of HUD informed us that Kent does not qualify for Entitlement Status.
With this new information, our options are limited, if the City wants to continue receiving HUD
dollars.
The U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires cities to sign an Agreement as a
condition of receiving federal funds, which are used to benefit low and moderate income people. The
City's current three year Interlocal Cooperative Agreement with King County expires at the end of
1999. To continue our participation in the King County Consortium and receive federal pass through
dollars for the next three years the City will need to sign a new ICA with King County(attached).
The New ICA includes only minor changes from the current agreement and is attached.
Recommended Action
Approval of the 2000 — 2002 Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Agreement, and
authorize the Mayor to sign this Agreement and forward it to King County.
KJ\mp\P:\Human Services\CDBG\cdbgica.jwdoc
enc: Community Development Block Grant Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
Community Development Block Grant Joint Agreement
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements for 2000-2002
-- cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Katherin Johnson,Human Services Manager
Carolyn Sundvall,Planner
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County and the City of
said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government in
the State of Washington.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the federal government through adoption and administration of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amrna. ' .. ' " ;rt"), will make Community
Development Block Grant("CDBG"),funds available to King County,for expenditure during the
2000-2002 funding years;and
WHEREAS,the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any participating
cities,has been designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
("HUD"),as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds;and
WHEREAS,the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the annual
appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county;and
WHEREAS,the Act allows joint participation of units of general government within an
urban county,and a distribution of CDBG funds to such governmental units;and
WHEREAS,the CDBG Regulations require the.acceptance of the consolidated housing
and community development plan("Consolidated H&CD Plan")by participating jurisdictions;and
WHEREAS,King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating
incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by granting funds to those
jurisdictions to carry out such activities;and
WHEREAS,King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities
undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King
County is required to submit to HUD with the annual Action Plan will be met;and
WHEREAS,King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting
CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low-and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD;and
WHEREAS,King County and its consortium members recognize that the needs of low-
and moderate-income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and can therefore be considered
regional needs;and
WHEREAS,King County and the participating jurisdictions must submit an Annual
Action Plan to HUD which is a requirement to receive CDBG funds;and
WHEREAS,the purpose of this Interloeal Cooperation Agreement,which is entered into
pursuant to and in accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act,RCW Chap.39.34,is to
form an urban county consortium,("Consortium"),for planning the distribution and administration
of CDBG and other federal funds received on behalf of the Consortium from HUD,and for
execution of activities in accordance with and under authority of the Act;
NOW,THEREFORE,IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN,IT IS AGREED THAT:
I. GENERAL AGREEMENT
King County and each participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake,or assist
in undertaking,activities which further the development of viable urban communities,
including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding
economic opportunities,principally for persons of low and moderate income,through
community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities,specifically urban
renewal and publicly assisted housing,funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years' 2000,2001,and 2002 appropriations,from recaptured funds allocated in
those years,and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds..
H. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The distribution within the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act shall be
governed by the following provisions,exclusive of the Cities of Auburn,Bellevue,and
Seattle.
A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and other federal
programs which benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This
amount,hereinafter referred to as the administrative setaside,is contingent upon
review by the Joint Recommendations Committee("the Committee"),as provided in
Section VIII(C)(1),and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council,as
provided by Sections XIII(A)and XIII(B).
B. In addition to the administrative setaside referred to in Section II(A),each year 25%of
the public service funds available,not to exceed S300,000,will be subtracted from the
entitlement and reserved for the Housing Stability Program,a public service activity in
'support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of the state
Growth Management Act(RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service setaside will be
administered by the County with input from a working group of the participating cities
and county staff. This public service setaside will be subject to the same percentage of
decrease as the annual public service funds if there are any reductions during the year.
C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in Sections II(A)and
II(B)("the Adjusted Grant Amount"),any city which is a participant in this Agreement
may be eligible to receive a direct pass-through share("the pass-through"),provided
that:
1. The city's share of the Adjusted Grant Amount equals$50,000 or more based
uponthe city's percentage of the Consortium's low-and moderate-income persons,
as defined by HUD,or the city's share is less than$50,000 but the city received a
pass-through in the previous year and wishes to continue receiving a pass-
through;
2. The city participates in developing the Consortium's Consolidated H&CD Plan
by identifying its non-housing community development needs;
3. The city may apply for planning dollars from the County and Small Cities Fund
(defined in Section II D below)the year prior to accepting a Pass-through,the
amount to be at least what the city would have received for planning and
administration had they been a Pass-through city;
4. In the fall before the first program year it becomes a Pass-through City,the city
may elect to take the entire pass-through and allocate all their funds,or to take a
partial pass-through and allocate only their public services or capital funds,
depending on which needs they have identified and on whether the city can meet
the Consortium's schedule for allocating the funds and for submitting proposed
projects to HUD. If the new Pass-through city chooses to allocate only part of
their pass-through funds,the Joint Recommendations Committee will allocate the
2
remaining funds to one or more regional projects benefiting residents of the city
and surrounding area. In any case,the city will continue to receive its planning
allocation;and
5. The participating city agrees to abide by Consortium requirements to receive a
pass-t#irough of CDBG funds or their ability to receive a pass-through will be
revoked.The responsibilities of these pass-through jurisdictions are defined in
Section X. Participating cities may elect not to receive a direct pass-through but
may compete for County and Small Cities Funds,as defined in Section II(D),
below.
D. The funds remaining in the Adjusted Grant Amount after the distribution of the pass-
through funds referred to in Section II(C)shall be referred to as the County and Small
Cities Fund,and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities
not qualifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through,and/or projects
serving the unincorporated areas of the county.
E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the
actual cost of the project,or if the project is later reduced or canceled,then the excess
monies or recaptured funds,will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed
as follows:
1.. Administrative setaside funds,as defined in Section II(A)and public service
setaside as defined in Section H(B)which are recaptured shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low-and moderate-
income persons,as defined by HUD.
2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through fund,as
defined in Section II(C),shall be returned to the city's pass-through fund,unless
the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in Section II(C)(1),in
which case the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities
Fund,as defined in Section II(D),shall be returned to the County and Small Cities
Fund.
F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years(e.g.,unallocated or
recaptured"Population,""Needs,"or"Joint"funds)shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low-and moderate-income
persons,as defined by HUD.
G. Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from the use of
CDBG funds,hereinafter referred to as program income,shall be returned to the fund
which generated the program income as follows,unless an exception is specifically
recommended by the Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County
Council:
1. That portion of the program income which is interest or fee income generated
through Community Development Interim Loan(CDIL)and Section 108 loan
guarantee projects(as provided in Section 108 of the Act),both of which use all
or a portion of the Consortium's total available CDBG funds,shall be returned to
the Consortium. The funds shall be used for the direct costs(e.g.,staff,attorney,
and bank fees,advertising costs,contract compliance costs),necessary for the
marketing,negotiation,and implementation of the interim loan and 108 loan
activities,and for other Consortium-wide or subregional capital projects or
programs,including other Consortium-wide economic development projects or
programs. Use of the funds shall be recommended by the Committee each year
after review by an inter jurisdictional staff group.
2. Program income generated from a project(including housing repair)funded
through a city's pass-through fund,as defined in Section II(C),shall be returned to
the city's pass-through fund,unless the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through
as provided in Section II(C)(3),in which case the program income shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Program income generated from a project(including housing repair)funded --
through the County and Small Cities Fund,as defined in Section II(D),shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
4. Program income generated from projects funded in 1987(except for housing
repair)and prior years shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to
the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds according to their
share of the Consortium's low-and modcrdte-inconic persons,as dctined by 11U1..
Housing repair program income shall return to the housing repair program.
III. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activities and projects
which it will undertake with the funds described in Section II above.
B. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG funds are
targeted to activities which can document predominant(51%)benefit to low-and
moderate-income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's
requirements for the percentage of funds spent to benefit low-and moderate-income
persons in King County.
C. Pass-through Cities may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-through Cities
for general revenue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a Pass-
through City in this manner shall be consistent with the general intent of the
community development program,but shall not be considered CDBG program
income.
D. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen
participation activities as required by HUD regulations.
E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applications(proposals)to
King County;approval of activities shall be secured when the annual program is
approved or amended.
F. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be paid for out of
the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred in administering specific projects
may be included in project costs.
IV. USE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS
A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover
administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund planning projects,however,
this amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based upon the city's
proportion of low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD.
B. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Section X.,Pass-through Cities may use
additional pass-through funds to cover part of their administrative costs if:
1. Planning ceiling(the maximum amount allowed by HUD for planning and
administration activities which cannot exceed 20%of the annual entitlement plus
program income)is available;
2. The city runs a competitive process for the distribution of the CDBG funds;and
3. City staff participate in Consortium-wide planning processes such as development
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan and the HOME Consortium Working Group.
I
4
C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning ceiling,if available,
to cover additional administrative costs will take priority over requests for planning
projects.
D. Pass-through City staff who are supported with administrative funds would also be
expected to assist in preparing and/or presenting information to the Committee.
V. USE OF PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS
A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover public service
activities;however,the amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based
upon the city's proportion of low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD.
VI. PROGRAM INCOME
A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by
the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the participating jurisdiction.
B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in Section II(G)of this
Agreement.
C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be
used for eligible activities in accordance with all applicable CDBG requirements.
D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of
any such program income and thereby requires appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting by'the participating jurisdiction as stated in the signed certification to receive
"Pass-through City"status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and
administration funds.
E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction any
program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in
status shall be paid to King County Consortium.
VII. REAL PROPERTY
A.' Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or improved in whole
or in part with CDBG funds must comply with change of use restrictions as required
by HUD and the policies adopted by the Committee as found in the Consolidated
H&CD Plan.
B. The participating jurisdiction must nolify King County prior to any modification or
change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with
CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at
the time of the acquisition or improvement,including disposition.
C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current fair
market value(less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG
funds)of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred
for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or
subsequent to the close-out,change pf status,or termination of the cooperation
agreement between the county and the participating jurisdiction shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Section II(G)and Section VI.
VIII. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE
A Joint Recommendations Committee shall be established.
A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of four County representatives and
five Cities representatives. The four County representatives may be representatives of
Department Directors or their designees.and/or citizen representatives of
unincorporated communities. County representatives shall be specified in writing and
should,where possible,be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. The
five participating city representatives and their alternates will include city planning
directors or comparable level staff,or elected officials. Two city representatives and
their alternates will be from the northeast region of the County and two city
representatives and their alternates will be from the south region of the County. An
additional revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME-
only cities of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting,except
on issues related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-
related funds(excluding CDBG).
B. Appointments. The King County Executive shall appoint the four County
representatives(no more than one representative per unincorporated community or
Department). The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different jurisdictions,
four to serve as members and four as alternates,which in turn,will assign
representatives to this Committee. Priority for one of the positions will be for a small
city representative. The revolving HOME position will be appointed annually by the
respective jurisdiction. Members of the Committee shall serve for two years,or at the
pleasure of their respective appointing authorities.
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among
the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one
year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will
constitute a quorum.
C. powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters on the
Consortium's CDBG and HOME Program including the amount of administrative
setaside,priorities governing the use of the public services setaside,and projects
or programs to be funded with the program income from community development
interim loans and Section 108 loan guarantees(as allowed in Section 108 of the
Act).
2. Review,recommend,and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required by
HUD.
3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating
jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King County Executive.
4. Review and recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failure to meet
responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agreement. Any recommended
sanctions will ensure that the city's low-and moderate-income residents continue
to benefit from CDBG funds. Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King
County Consortium from losing a share of its entitlement due to participating
cities'inability to meet federal requirements.
5. Review and recommend projects for funding under the Section 108 loan guarantee
program(as allowed in Section 108 of the Act).
6. Review and recommend projects for funding from the remainder of any new Pass-
through City's funds if that new Pass-through City chooses to take only a partial
pass-through(cf.Section II.C.6 above).
6
IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF
Those King County Housing and Community Development Program Staff positions which
are funded through the administrative setaside,hereinafter referred to as the Staff,serve as
staff to all Consortium partners and the Committee and provides liaison between the
Consortium and HUD.
A. ftsponsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff shall:
1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy
guidelines,special conditions,and formal requirements related to the preparation
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan,and related to administration of the programs
under these plans.
2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the Metropolitan King
County Council as components of the Consolidated H&CD Plan to be prepared
pursuant to this Agreement,including but not limited to: collection and analysis
of data;identification of problems,needs and their locations;development of long
and short term objectives;consideration of alternative strategies;and preparation
of the administrative budget.
3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or
recommendations,and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to
help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties.
4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the Committee specific
sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as
contained in Section X and as contained in specific annual agreements.
B. Resgonsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This Agreement.
The County will develop strategic plans which will identify community development
and housing needs and strategies to address high priority needs in the balance of the
County in accordance with the primary objectives and requirements of the Act.The
Consolidated H&CD Plan,including.the local program strategies will meet the HUD
requirement for a Community Development Plan. The strategies outlined within the
Consolidated H&CD Plan will be consistent with local comprehensive plans being
developed under the Growth Management Act. The Staff ghall:
1. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council material necessary
for the approval of the County and Small Cities portion of the annual program.
2. Present to the Metropolitan King County Council the Consortium's annual
program for adoption.
3. Distribute to participating jurisdictions,prior to any JRC decision based upon it,
information concerning proposals having implications for Consortium-wide
funding(cf.section II above). The county will incorporate jurisdictions' feedback
in materials forwarded to the JRC or Metropolitan King County Council.
4. Provide regular written reports outlining the outcomes and costs of the Consortium
wide housing stability and economic development programs such that this
information is available for participating jurisdictions'review and comment prior
-to the JRC's decisions on the programs'budgets for the following year,and
provide quarterly status reports to the pass-through cities on those housing repair
and capital projects which the county is administering on behalf of the pass-
through cities.
5. Administer the Consortium's CDBG Program:
• help to identify needs in communities;
7
•. provide assistance in interpreting HUD regulations;
• provide technical assistance to cities as necessary to enable them to meet their
responsibilities as partners to the Agreement;
• assist in the development of viable CDBG proposals;
• review all proposals for CDBG funding;
• inform participating jurisdictions in a timely way of the amount of capital
dollars available for distribution regionally and the requirements regarding
eligibility for them.
• develop contracts for funded projects in a timely fashion;public(human)
services programs have a high priority and will receive authorization to
proceed within 15 working days of the beginning of the program year if all
relevant information needed to prepare the contract has been submitted;
• monitor subrecipient and city-funded projects;
• monitor and enforce compliance with the federal wage and relocation require-
ments;
• reimburse all eligible costs;
• prepare and submit required documents and reports to HUD;and
• provide oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance with all
federal requirements.
6. Upon request by a Pass-through City,staff will develop,administer,and
implement a city's CDBG-funded contract. Additionally,multi jurisdictional
projects funded by King County and/or one or more cities will be developed and
implemented by Staff.
7. King County shall determine,with the advice of representatives from small cities,
the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in a manner consistent with the
Consolidated H&CD Plan including its local program strategies.
X. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES
In order to receive a direct share of the entitlement,Pass-through Cities participating in this
Agreement shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. Pass-through City Councils may adopt local strategies which will address community
development and housing needs in coordination with the Consortium's timeline for
consolidated planning effort and which will be consistent with local comprehensive
plans being developed under the Growth Management Act.
B. Notify the County of the citizen participation activities undertaken by local jurisdic-
tions as well as any changes made by the jurisdiction to funded CDBG activities in a
timely manner as referenced under Section III(D).
C. Each Pass-through City shall exercise local discretion in determining the use of its
pass-through funds in a manner that(1)is consistent with the Consolidated H&CD
Plan,(2)recognizes the federal requirement at 24 CFR Part 570.2 that a minimum of
70%of the funds be spent on activities benefiting primarily low and moderate income
persons,and(3)is in accordance with the Consortium's schedule for submission to
HUD.
D. City legislative bodies shall approve or disapprove via motion or resolution all CDBG
activities,locations,and budgets submitted by Pass-through City staff. Notice of these
actions are to be forwarded to the County in a timely manner.
E. Pass-through City staff shall review all project proposals for consistency with federal
threshold requirements and Consortium-wide and other federal requirements prior to
submission to the County,and ensure that all relevant information necessary to
prepare a contract is submitted to the County in a timely manner.
8
F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the Consortium-wide
Consolidated H&CD Plan which includes housing and other community development
needs,resources,strategies,and adopted projects.
G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within the program
year and submit both vouchers and required reports to the County in a complete and
timely manner.
H. Pass-through City staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide planning activities
such as HOME policy development and monitoring the Housing Stability Program.
I. Pass-through City staff shall collaborate with County staff working group and present
to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their
responsibilities as contained in this section and as contained in specific annual
agreements.
J. Each Pass-through City shall examine its role in recognizing and addressing regional
or Consortium-wide needs and may participate in a coordinated funding approach with
other jurisdictions and the County to serve their residents.
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES
Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County and Small Cities
application process. The Small Cities shall:
A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development needs and
strategies for addressing them.
B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs.
C. Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects.
D. Carry out funded projects in a timely manner.
X1I. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satisfaction all relevant
requirements of federal laws and regulations which apply to King County as applicant,
including assurances and certifications described in Section XTV(D).
B. Each participating jurisdiction or cooperating unit of general local government has
adopted and is enforcing:
i. a policy which prohibits the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies
within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights
demonstrations; and
2. a policy which enforces applicable State and local laws against physically barring
entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non-violent
civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions.
C. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501(b),all participating units of local government are subject
to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients,excluding the County's Minority
and Women Business Enterprises requirements. The applicable requirements include,
but are not limited to,a written agreement with the County which complies with 24
CFR 570.503 and includes provisions pertaining to the following items: statement of
work;records and reports;program income;uniform administrative items;other
program requirements;conditions for religious organizations;suspension and termi-
nation;and reversion of assets.
0
D. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for
grants under the federal Small Cities or State CDBG Programs which receive separate
entitlements from HUD during the period of participation in this Agreement.
Consortium cities which do not receive a direct pass-through of CDBG funds may
apply for grants under the County and Small Cities Fund.
E. All units of local government participating in the CDBG urban county through this
interlocal cooperation agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county
for the HOME program and may participate in a HOME program only through the
CDBG urban county.
X1I1. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSORTIUM
King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters,
including the Consolidated H&CD Plan,upon review and recommendation by the
Committee.
B. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allo-
cation matters,including the approval of the annual administrative setaside and the
approval and adoption of the Consortium's annual CDBG Program.
C. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve
requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG Program in the following
circumstances:
1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the adopted annual
program,and the change is requested by the legislative body of the Pass-through
City;or
2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted
annual program,and it is limited to a change of project scope or change of project
implement or in a specific project,and it is requested by the subrecipient,and the
change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the
project is located.
D. The King County Executive,as administrator of this CDBG Program,shall have
authority and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is
responsible to the federal government.
E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control
and disbursements.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement,the County as the
applicant for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the
applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program,including final responsibility for
selecting activities and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD. Nothing
contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi-
bilities and obligations.
XIV. GENERAL TERMS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2000,2001,and 2002 program years,and
will remain in effect until the CDBG funds.and program income received with respect
to activities carried out during the three-year qualification period are expended and the
funded activities completed. This agreement will be automatically renewed for
participation in successive three-year qualification periods,unless the county or the
city provides written notice it elects not to participate in the new qualification period
by the date set forth by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development in subsequent Urban County Qualification Notices. King County,as the
official applicant,shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that any
10
property acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance
with federal regulations.
B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2),during the period of qualification no included
unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the cooperation
agreement while it remains in effect.
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply
with the policies and implementation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan.
D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure
compliance with King County's certification required by Section 104(b)of Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,(Title III of the Civil Rights Act),the Fair Housing
Act as amended,Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974,as amended,the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,and other
applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in,or in support of any participating
city that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that
impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification.
F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become
necessary,and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a
written addendum to this Agreement. The city and the county agree to adopt any
amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the
requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period,and to submit such
amendment to the United State department of Housing and Urban Development.
Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such qualification
period..
G. Calculations for determining the number of low-and moderate-income persons
residing in the County and cities shall be based upon official HUD approved 1990
Census data,and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities,towns and
communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and
Fiscal Management.
H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have
signed this Agreement.
I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under
this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were
locally generated.
J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,under which King County
may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data,
information,and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining
whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility
only.
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING CITY OR TOWN
for Ron Sims Signature of Chief Executive Officer
King County Executive
Date Name and Title(Print)
Name of City or Town
Date
12
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
JOINT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between King County and the City of
,said parties to the Agreement each being a unit of general local government in
the State of Washington.
WITNESSETII:
WHEREAS,the federal government through adoption and administration of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended(the"Act"),will make Community
Development Block Grant("CDBG"),funds available to both the county and city in the form of
entitlement grants;and
WHEREAS,the area encompassed by unincorporated King County and any participating
cities is designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development("HUD")
as an urban county for the purpose of receiving CDBG funds;and
WHEREAS,the Act directs HUD to distribute to each urban county the annual
appropriation of CDBG funds based on the population characteristics of the urban county;and
WHEREAS,the Act allows joint agreements,whereby entitlement cities may join the
urban county,and allows the urban county to distribute CDBG funds to such cities as participating
jurisdictions;and
WHEREAS,the CDBG Regulations require the acceptance of the consolidated housing
and community development plan("Consolidated H&CD Plan")by participating jurisdictions;and
WHEREAS,King County will undertake CDBG-funded activities in participating
incorporated jurisdictions as specified in the Consolidated H&CD Plan by granting funds to those
jurisdictions to cant'out such activities;and
WHEREAS,King County is responsible to the federal government for all activities
undertaken with CDBG funds and will ensure that all CDBG assurances and certifications King
County is required to submit to HUD with the annual Action Plan will be met;and
WHEREAS,King County and the participating jurisdictions are committed to targeting
CDBG funds to ensure benefit to low-and moderate-income persons as defined by HUD;and
WHEREAS,King County and its participating jurisdictions recognize that the needs of
low-and moderate-income persons may cross jurisdictional boundaries and can therefore be
considered regional needs;and
WHEREAS,King County and the participating jurisdictions must submit an Annual
Action Plan to HUD which is a requirement to receive CDBG funds;and
WHEREAS,the purpose of this Joint Agreement,which is entered into pursuant to and in
accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act,RCW Chap.39.34,is for the city to join the
urban county consortium,("Consortium"),for planning the distribution and administration of
CDBG and other federal funds received on behalf of the Consortium from HUD,and for execution
of activities in accordance with and under authority of the Act;
NOW,THEREFORE,IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN,IT IS AGREED THAT:
1. GENERAL AGREEMENT
King County and each participating jurisdiction agree to cooperate to undertake,or assist
in undertaking,activities which further the development of viable urban communities,
including the provision of decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding
economic opportunities.principally for persons of low and moderate income,through
renewal and publicly assisted housing,funded from annual CDBG funds from federal
Fiscal Years' 2000,2001,and 2002 appropriations,from recaptured funds allocated in
those years,and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds..
II. GENERA,DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
The distribution within the County of CDBG Funds under Title I of the Act shall be
governed by the following provisions,exclusive of the Cities of Auburn,Bellevue,and
Seattle.
A. The amount needed for administration of the Consortium's CDBG and other federal
programs which benefit the Consortium shall be reserved by the County. This
amount,hereinafter referred to as the administrative setaside,is contingent upon
review by the Joint Recommendations Committee("the Committee"),as provided in
Section VIII(C)(1),and approval by the Metropolitan King County Council,as
provided by Sections XIII(A)and XIII(B).
B. In addition to the administrative setaside referred to in Section II(A),each year 25%
of the public service funds available,not to exceed$300,000,will be subtracted from
the entitlement and reserved for the Housing Stability Program,a public service
activity in support of the affordable housing requirements under the implementation of
the state Growth Management Act(RCW Chapter 36.70A). This public service seta-
side will be administered by the County with input from a working group of the
participating cities and county staff. This public service setaside will be subject to the
same percentage of decrease as the annual public service funds if there are any reduc-
tions during the year. In addition,any city participating in this Joint Agreement will
have the option of withholding their pro rats share of the Housing Stability Program
funds and allocating them to a different eligible public service activity if the city so
chooses.
C. Of the grant amount remaining after the setasides referred to in Sections II(A)and
II(B)("the Adjusted Grant Amount"),the city participating in this Joint Agreement
will be eligible to receive a direct pass-through share,provided that:
1. The city's pass-through share will be the larger of a share of the Adjusted Grant
Amount based upon the CDBG Consortium's formula(the city's share of the
Consortium's total low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD),or
the city's HUD-specified entitlement grant amount less the city's pro rata share of
the Consortium's administrative setaside,and at the city's option(see II.B.
above)less the city's pro rata share of the Housing Stability Program;
2. The city participates in developing the Consortium's Consolidated H&CD Plan
by identifying its non-housing community development needs;
3. The city agrees to abide by Consortium schedules and requirements to receive a
pass-through of CDBG funds.The responsibilities of these pass-through
jurisdictions are defined in Section X. Participating cities nay elect not to receive
a direct pass-through but may compete for County and Small Cities Funds,as
defined in Section II(D),below.
D. The funds remaining in the Adjusted Grant Amount after the distribution of the pass-
through funds referred to in Section II(C)shall be referred to as the County and Small
2
Cities Fund,and shall be allocated on a competitive basis to projects serving the cities
not qualifying to receive or not electing to receive a pass-through,and/or projects
serving the unincorporated areas of the county.
E. If the monies assigned to a project during the period of this Agreement exceed the
actual cost of the project,or if the project is later reduced or canceled,then the excess
monies or recaptured funds,will be recaptured by the County and will be redistributed
as follows:
1. Administrative setaside funds,as defined in Section II(A)and public service
setaside as defined in Section H(B)which are recaptured shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low-and moderate-
income persons,as defined by HUD.
2. Funds recaptured from a project funded through a city's pass-through fund,as
defined in Section II(C),shall be returned to the city's pass-through fund,unless
the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through as provided in Section II(C)(1),in
which case the funds shall be returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Funds recaptured from a project funded through the County and Small Cities
Fund,as defined in Section II(D),shall be returned to the County and Small Cities
Fund.
F. Unallocated or recaptured funds from 1987 and prior years(e.g.,unallocated or
recaptured"Population,""Needs,"or"Joint"funds)shall be returned to the
Consortium and be distributed to the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small
Cities Funds based on their percentage of the Consortium's low-and moderate-income
persons,as defined by HUD.
G. Funds received by a jurisdiction or CDBG subrecipient generated from the use of
CDBG funds,hereinafter referred to as program income,shall be returned to the fund
which generated the program income as follows,unless an exception is specifically
recommended by the Committee and approved by the Metropolitan King County
Council:
1. That portion of the program income which is interest or fee income generated
through Community Development Interim Loan(CDIL)and Section 108 loan
guarantee projects(as provided in Section 108 of the Act),both of which use all
or a portion of the Consortium's total available CDBG funds,shall be returned to
the Consortium. The funds shall be used for the direct costs(e.g.,staff,attorney,
and bank fees,advertising costs,contract compliance costs),necessary for the
marketing,negotiation,and implementation of the interim loan and 108 loan
activities,and for other Consortium-wide or subregional capital projects or
programs,including other Consortium-wide economic development projects or
programs. Use of the funds shall be recommended by the Committee each year
after review by an inter jurisdictional staff group.
2. Program income generated from a project(including housing repair)funded
through a city's pass-through fund,as defined in Section II(C),shall be returned to
the city's pass-through fund,unless the city no longer qualifies for a pass-through
as provided in Section II(C)(3),in which case the program income shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
3. Program income generated from a project(including housing repair)funded
through the County and Small Cities Fund,as defined in Section II(D),shall be
returned to the County and Small Cities Fund.
4. Program income generated from projects funded in 1987(except for housing
repair)and prior years shall be returned to the Consortium and be distributed to
the Pass-through Cities and the County and Small Cities Funds according to their
share of the Consortium's low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD.
Housing repair program income shall return to the housing repair program.
3
M. USE OF FUNDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall specify activities and projects
which it will undertake with the funds described in Section II above.
B. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall ensure that CDBG funds are
targeted to activities which can document predominant(51%)benefit to low-and
moderate-income people and that the overall program meets or exceeds HUD's
requirements for the percentage of funds spent to benefit low-and moderate-income
persons in King County.
C. Pass-through Cities may exchange their CDBG funds with other Pass-through Cities
for general revenue funds. The use of general revenue funds obtained by a Pass-
through City in this manner shall be consistent with the general intent of the
community development program,but shall not be considered CDBG program
income.
D. The County and each of the Pass-through Cities shall conduct the appropriate citizen
participation activities as required by HUD regulations.
E. Approval of projects must be secured through formal grant applications(proposals)to
King County;approval of activities shall be secured when the annual program is
approved or amended.
F. General administrative costs incurred by Pass-through Cities shall be paid for out of
the pass-through or from local funds. Costs incurred in administering specific projects
may be included in project costs.
IV. USE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS
A. A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover
administrative costs of its local CDBG Program or to fund planning projects,however,
this amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based upon the city's
proportion of low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD.
B. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Section X.,Pass-through Cities may use
additional pass-through funds to cover part of their administrative costs if
1. Planning ceiling(the maximum amount allowed by HUD for planning and
administration activities which cannot exceed 20%of the annual entitlement plus
program income)is available;
2. The city runs a competitive process for the distribution of the CDBG funds;and
3. City staff participate in Consortium-wide planning processes such as development
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan and the HOME Consortium Working Group.
C. Requests from Pass-through Cities to use the balance of planning ceiling,if available,
to cover additional administrative costs will take priority over requests for planning
projects.
D. Pass-through City staff who are supported with administrative funds would also be
expected to assist in preparing and/or presenting information to the Committee.
V. USE OF PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDS
A Pass-through City may reserve a portion of its entitlement share to cover public service —.
activities;however,the amount must be reserved by spring of each year and will be based
upon the city's proportion of low-and moderate-income persons,as defined by HUD.
4
VI. PROGRAM INCOME
A. The participating jurisdiction must inform King County of any income generated by
the expenditure of CDBG funds received by the participating jurisdiction.
B. Any such program income is subject to requirements set forth in Section II(G)of this
Agreement.
C. Any program income the participating jurisdiction is authorized to retain may only be
used for eligible activities in accordance with all applicable CDBG requirements.
D. King County has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of
any such program income and thereby requires appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting by the participating jurisdiction as stated in the signed certification to receive
"Pass-through City"status and in each city's contract to receive CDBG planning and
administration funds.
E. In the event of close-out or change in status of the participating jurisdiction any
program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in
status shall be paid to King County Consortium.
VII. REAL PROPERTY
A. Participating jurisdictions owning community facilities acquired or improved in whole
or in part with CDBG funds must comply with change of use restrictions as required
by HUD and the policies adopted by the Committee as found in the Consolidated
H&CD Plan.
B. The participating jurisdiction must notify King County prior to any modification or
change in the use of real property acquired or improved in whole or in part with
CDBG funds. This includes any modification or change in use from that planned at
the time of the acquisition or improvement,including disposition.
C. The jurisdiction shall reimburse King County in an amount equal to the current fair
market value(less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG
funds)of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred
for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations.
D. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or
subsequent to the close-out,change of status,or termination of the cooperation
agreement between the county and the participating jurisdiction shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Section II(G)and Section VI.
VIII. JOINT RECOMMENDATIONS COMMITTEE
A Joint Recommendations Committee shall be established.
A. Composition. The Committee shall be composed of four County representatives and
five Cities representatives. The four County representatives may be Department
Directors or their designees,and/or citizen representatives from unincorporated
communities.County representatives shall be specified in writing and should,where
possible,be the same person consistently from meeting to meeting. The five partici-
pating city representatives and their alternates will include city planning directors or
comparable level staff,or elected officials. Two city representatives and their
alternates will be from the north/east region of the County and two city representatives
and their alternates will be from the south region of the County. An additional
revolving position on this Committee shall be rotated between the HOME-only cities
of Auburn and Bellevue. The revolving position will be non-voting,except on issues
related to the King County HOME Consortium and other federal housing-related funds
(excluding CDBG).
5
B. Appointments. The King County Executive shall appoint the four County
representatives(no more than one representative for each unincorporated community
or Department). The Suburban Cities Association will select eight different
jurisdictions,four to serve as members and four as alternates,who in turn,will assign
representatives to this Committee. Terms of office shall be for two years. Priority for
one of the positions will be for a small city representative. The revolving HOME
position will be appointed annually by the respective jurisdiction. Members of the
Committee shall serve at the pleasure of their respective appointing authorities.
The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committee shall be chosen from among
the members of the Committee by a majority vote of the members for a term of one
year beginning the first meeting of the calendar year. Attendance of five members will
constitute a quorum.
C. Powers and Duties. The Committee shall be empowered to:
1. Review and recommend to the King County Executive all policy matters on the
Consortium's CDBG and HOME Program including the amount of administrative
setaside,priorities governing the use of the public services setaside,and projects
or programs to be funded with the program income from community development
interim loans and Section 108 loan guarantees(as allowed in Section 108 of the
Act).
2. Review,recommend,and endorse the Consolidated H&CD Plan required by
HUD.
3. Review plan and program disagreements between the County and participating
jurisdictions and offer recommendations to the King County Executive.
4. Review and recommend sanctions to be imposed on cities for failure to meet
responsibilities as contained in Section X of this Agreement. Any recommended
sanctions will ensure that the city's low-and moderate-income residents continue
to benefit from CDBG funds. Sanctions will be imposed to prevent the King
County Consortium from losing a share of its entitlement due to participating
cities'inability to meet federal requirements.
5. Review and recommend projects for funding under the Section 108 loan guarantee
program(as allowed in Section 108 of the Act).
6. Review and recommend projects for funding from the remainder of any new Pass-
through City's funds if that new Pass-through City chooses to take only a partial
pass-through(cf.Section U.C.6 above).
IX. RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF THE KING COUNTY HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STAFF
Those King County Housing and Community Development Program Staff positions which
are funded through the administrative setaside,hereinafter referred to as the Staff,serve as
staff to all Consortium partners and the Committee and provides liaison between the
Consortium and HUD.
A. Responsibilities to the Joint Recommendations Committee. The Staff shall:
1. Solicit and present to the Committee all applicable federal and County policy
guidelines,special conditions,and formal requirements related to the preparation
of the Consolidated H&CD Plan,and related to administration of the programs
under these plans.
2. Prepare and present written materials required by HUD and the Metropolitan King -i
County Council as components of the Consolidated H&CD Plan to be prepared
pursuant to this Agreement,including but not limited to: collection and analysis
of data;identification of problems,needs and their locations;development of long
6
and short term objectives;consideration of alternative strategies;and preparation
of the administrative budget.
3. Prepare and present to the Committee policy evaluation reports or
recommendations,and any other material deemed necessary by the Committee to
help the Committee fulfill its powers and duties.
4. Collaborate with city staff working groups and present to the Committee specific
sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their responsibilities as
contained in Section X and as contained in specific annual agreements.
B. Responsibilities to Jurisdictions Which are Parties to This Agreement.
The County will develop strategic plans which will identify community development
and housing needs and strategies to address high priority needs in the balance of the
County in accordance with the primary objectives and requirements of the Act.The
Consolidated H&CD Plan,including the local program strategies will meet the HUD
requirement for a Community Development Plan. The strategies outlined within the
Consolidated H&CD Plan will be consistent with local comprehensive plans being
developed under the Growth Management Act. The Staff shall:
1. Prepare and present to the King County Executive and Council material necessary
for the approval of the County and Small Cities portion of the annual program.
2. Present to the Metropolitan King County Council the Consortium's annual
program for adoption.
3. Distribute to participating jurisdictions,prior to any JRC decision based upon it,
information concerning proposals having implications for Consortium-wide
funding(cf.section H above). The county will incorporate jurisdictions'feedback
in materials forwarded to the JRC or Metropolitan King County Council.
4. Provide regular written reports outlining the outcomes and costs of the
Consortium wide Housing Stability and economic development programs such
that this information is available for participating jurisdictions'review and
comment prior to the JRC's decisions on the programs'budgets for the following
year,and provide quarterly status reports to the pass-through cities on those
housing repair programs and capital projects which the county is administering on
behalf of the pass-through cities.
5. Administer the Consortium's CDBG Program:
• help to identify needs in communities;
• provide assistance in interpreting HUD regulations;
• provide technical assistance to cities as necessary to enable them to meet their
responsibilities as partners to the Agreement;
• assist in the development of viable CDBG proposals;
• review all proposals for CDBG funding;
• inform participating jurisdictions in a timely way of the amount of capital
dollars available for distribution regionally and the requirements regarding
eligibility for them.
• develop contracts for funded projects in a timely fashion;public(human)
services programs have a high priority and will receive authorization to
proceed within 15 working days of the beginning of the program year if all
relevant information needed to prepare the contract has been submitted;
• monitor subrecipient and city-funded projects;
"i • monitor and enforce compliance with the federal wage and relocation require-
ments;
• reimburse all eligible costs;
• prepare and submit required documents and reports to HUD;and
• provide oversight of the CDBG Consortium to ensure compliance with all
federal requirements.
6. Upon request by a Pass-through City,staff will develop,administer,and implement a city's
CDBG-funded contract. Additionally,multi jurisdictional projects funded by King County and/or
one or more cities will be developed and implemented by Staff.
7. King County shall determine,with the advice of representatives from small cities,
the use of the County and Small Cities Funds in a manner consistent with the
Consolidated H&CD Plan including its local program strategies.
X. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF PASS-THROUGH CITIES
In order to receive a direct share of the entitlement,Pass-through Cities participating in this
Agreement shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. Pass-through City Councils may adopt local strategies which will address community
development and housing needs in coordination with the Consortium's timeline for
consolidated planning effort and which will be consistent with local comprehensive
plans being developed under the Growth Management Act.
B. Notify the County of the citizen participation activities undertaken by local jurisdic-
tions as well as any changes made by the jurisdiction to funded CDBG activities in a
timely manner as referenced under Section III(D).
C. Each Pass-through City shall exercise local discretion in determining the use of its
pass-through funds in a manner that(1)is consistent with the Consolidated H&CD
Plan,(2)recognizes the federal requirement at 24 CFR Part 570.2 that a minimum of
70%of the funds be spent on activities benefiting primarily low and moderate income
persons,and(3)is in accordance with the Consortium's schedule for submission to
HUD.
D. City legislative bodies shall approve or disapprove via motion or resolution all CDBG
activities,locations,and budgets submitted by Pass-through City staff. Notice of these
actions are to be forwarded to the County in a timely manner.
E. Pass-through City staff shall review all project proposals for consistency with federal
threshold requirements and Consortium-wide and other federal requirements prior to
submission to the County,and ensure that all relevant information necessary to
prepare a contract is submitted to the County in a timely manner.
F. Pass-through City staff shall assist in the development of the Consortium-wide
Consolidated H&CD Plan which includes housing and other community development
needs,resources,strategies,and adopted projects.
G. Pass-through City staff shall implement CDBG-funded projects within the program
year and submit both vouchers and required reports to the County in a complete and
timely manner.
H. Pass-through City staff shall participate in other Consortium-wide planning activities
such as HOME policy development and monitoring the Housing Stability Program.
I. Pass-through City staff shall collaborate with County staff working group and present
to the Committee specific sanctions to be imposed on cities which fail to meet their
responsibilities as contained in this section and as contained in specific annual
agreements.
I Each Pass-through City shall examine its role in recognizing and addressing regional
or Consortium-wide needs and may participate in a coordinated funding approach with
other jurisdictions and the County to serve their residents.
8
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER CONSORTIUM CITIES
Other Consortium cities must apply for funds through the annual County and Small Cities
-- application process. The Small Cities shall:
A. Coordinate with County Staff in identifying community development needs and
strategies for addressing them.
B. Prepare applications for CDBG funds to address local needs.
C. Obtain city council authorization for proposed projects.
D. Cant'out funded projects in a timely manner.
XII. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS
A. Each participating jurisdiction shall fulfill to the County's satisfaction all relevant
requirements of federal laws and regulations which apply to King County as applicant,
including assurances and certifications described in Section XIV(D).
B. Each participating jurisdiction or cooperating unit of general local government has
adopted and is enforcing:
1. a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies
within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights
demonstrations;and
2. a policy enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring
entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of non-violent
civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions.
C. Pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501(b),all participating units of local government are subject
to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients,excluding the County's Minority
and Women Business Enterprises requirements. The applicable requirements include,
but are not limited to,a written agreement with the County which complies with 24
CFR 570.503 and includes provisions pertaining to the following items: statement of
work;records and reports;program income;uniform administrative items;other
program requirements;conditions for religious organizations;suspension and termi-
nation;and reversion of assets.
D. All participating units of local government understand that they may not apply for
grants under the federal Small Cities or State CDBG Programs which receive separate
entitlements from HUD during the period of participation in this Agreement.
Consortium cities which do not receive a direct pass-through of CDBG funds may
apply for grants under the County and Small Cities Fund.
E. All units of local government participating in the CDBG urban county through this
agreement understand that they are also part of the urban county for the HOME
program,and may participate in a HOME program only through the urban county.
XIII. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS OF KING COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSORTIUM
King County shall have the following responsibilities and powers:
A. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all policy matters,
including the Consolidated H&CD Plan,upon review and recommendation by the
Committee.
B. The King County Council shall have authority and responsibility for all fund allo-
cation matters,including the approval of the annual administrative setaside and the
approval and adoption of the Consortium's annual CDBG Program.
9
C. The King County Executive shall have the authority and responsibility to approve
requested changes to the adopted annual CDBG Program in the following
circumstances:
1. The requested change is to a Pass-through City's portion of the adopted annual
program,and the change is requested by the legislative body of the Pass-through
City;or
2. The requested change is in the County and Small Cities portion of the adopted
annual program,and it is limited to a change of project scope or change of project
implementor in a specific project,and it is requested by the subrecipient,and the
change is made in consultation with the Councilmember in whose district the
project is located.
D. The King County Executive,as administrator of this CDBG Program,shall have
authority.and responsibility for all administrative requirements for which the County is
responsible to the federal government.
E. The King County Executive shall have authority and responsibility for all fund control
and disbursements.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement,the County as the
applicant for CDBG funds has responsibility for and assumes all obligations as the
applicant in the execution of this CDBG Program,including final responsibility for
selecting activities and annually submitting Action Plans with HUD..Nothing
contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an abdication of those responsi-
bilities and obligations.
XIV. GENERAL TERMS
A. This Agreement shall extend through the 2000,2001,and 2002 program years,and
will remain in effect until the CDBG funds and program income received with respect
to activities carried out during the three-year period are expended and the funded
activities completed. This agreement will be automatically ren.-wed for participation
in successive three-year qualification periods,unless the county or the city provides
written notice that it elects not to participate in the new qualification period by the date
set forth by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in
subsequent Urban County Qualification Notices. King County,as the official
applicant,shall have the authority and responsibility to ensure that any property
acquired or assisted with CDBG funds is disposed of or used in accordance with
federal regulations.
B. Pursuant to 24 CFR Part 570.307(d)(2),during the period of qualification no included
unit of general local government may terminate or withdraw from the agreement while
it remains in effect.
C. It is understood that by signing this Agreement the jurisdictions shall agree to comply
with the policies and implementation of the Consolidated H&CD Plan.
D. Parties to this Agreement must take all required actions necessary to assure
compliance with King County's certification required by Section 104(b)of Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,(Title III of the Civil Rights Act),the Fair Housing
Act as amended,Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974,as amended,the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,and other
applicable laws.
E. No CDBG funds shall be expended for activities in,or in support of any participating
city that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that
impedes the County's actions to comply with its fair housing certification.
10
F. It is recognized that amendment of the provisions of this Agreement may become
necessary,and such amendment shall take place when all parties have executed a
written addendum to this Agreement. The city and the county agree to adopt any
amendments to the agreement incorporating changes necessary to meet the
requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in an Urban County Qualification
Notice applicable for a subsequent three-year qualification period,and to submit such
amendment to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Failure to adopt such amendment will void the automatic renewal of such qualification
period.
G. Calculations for determining the number of low-and moderate-income persons
residing in the County and cities shall be based upon official HUD approved 1990
Census data,and on the official annual estimates of populations of cities,towns and
communities published by the State of Washington Office of Program Planning and
Fiscal Management.
H. Participating jurisdictions shall be considered to be those jurisdictions which have
signed this Agreement.
I. Jurisdictions undertaking activities and/or projects with CDBG funds distributed under
this Agreement retain full civil and criminal liability as though these funds were
locally generated.
J. King County retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,under which King County
may require the local incorporated jurisdiction or contractor to furnish data,
information,and assistance for King County's review and assessment in determining
whether King County must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
K. Jurisdictions retain responsibility in fulfilling the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act under which King County has review responsibility
only.
KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON PARTICIPATING CITY OR TOWN
for Ron Sims Signature of Chief Executive Officer
King County Executive
Date Signed Name and Title (Print)
Name of City or Town
Date Signed
C158(7/18/97)
I1
Summary of Changes to CDBG and HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreements
for 2000-2002
Two Revisions to HOME Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
1. Appointments to JRC: Corrects misleading statement about Suburban Cities
Association, which has always appointed only the eight CDBG+HONIE cities to the
JRC (four regulars and four alternates) and not the two HOME-only cities. These two
cities—Bellevue and Auburn—automatically rotate membership on the JRC, and are
not appointed by the SCA. In addition, gives County Executive the option of
appointing a citizen representative of unincorporated King County as one of the four
County representatives (the number of county representatives does not change).
2. Tenn of agreement: Provides for automatic renewal of the 3-year agreement, upon
written notice to participating jurisdictions that they have the option to amend or opt
out.
Five Changes to CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement:
1. The obligation of county staff to provide timely information to Consortium partners
and allow time for response before making recommendations to the JRC, is clearly
stated. Similarly,the responsibility of county staff to get contracts out in a timely
fashion is clearly stated.
2. There is now a"grandfather"clause, which would allow cities that previously
received a Pass-through to continue receiving one even if they fall below the
threshold in future years.
3. All references to Pass-through cities doing their own local strategic plans or local
program policies are eliminated, since we are making this optional under our new
approach to the Consolidated plan. For consistency, this necessitated some changes
in what the consortium expects of new Pass-through cities.
4. Appointments to JRC—see HOME changes, above.
5. Term of agreement—see HOME changes, above.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 1998 MISCELLANEOUS WATERMAIN IMPROVEMNETS - ACCEPT
AS COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee, accept the 1998 Miscellaneous Watermain
Improvements contract as complete and release the retainage to
Kar-Vel Construction upon standard releases from the State and
release of any liens . The original contract amount was
$45, 158 . 05 . The final construction cost was $55, 056 . 05, the
overruns being a result of an additional amount of material
required to raise the watermain and the installation of an air-
vac valve . Adequate funds exist within the project budget to
cover these overruns .
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6H
oKent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN - SET
PUBLIC HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee, set August 17th as the public hearing date
for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6I
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: STREET VACATION, SE 272ND NEAR 132ND AVENUE SE -
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee, adoption of Resolution No. setting
September 7th as the public hearing date for the SE 272nd near
132nd Ave SE Street Vacation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6J
Z
y 101 D'
P
♦0:7 J' EfJ'' �
9
PA /2 [_
-292 fill
1�
9� ro -
r
nJ
10
7 ,2
I av,
If�
.1
f
I
132 ND -WE SE
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, regarding the vacation of a portion of 272"'
Street, a dedicated, opened street lying generally west of
that street's intersection with Kent Kangley Road and
132"d Avenue S.E., and setting the public hearing on the
proposed street vacation for September 7, 1999.
WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by J.G. Kent
Highlands, L.L.C. to vacate a portion of 272"d Street, a dedicated, opened street lying
generally west of that street's intersection with Kent Kangley Road and 132"d Avenue
S.E., in the City of Kent, King County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, the petition is signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of
the property abutting that portion of 272"d Street that is now being sought to be vacated;
and
WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting
the vacation of a portion of 272"' Street shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City
Council at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 7, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall
located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032.
1 272"d Street Vacation
SECTION2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and
cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Ch. 35.79 RCW.
SECTION3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval
or rejection or other information from the Public Works Department and other appropriate
departments and shall transmit information to the Council so that the Council may
consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on September 7, 1999.
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 and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, on the
day of , 1999.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
PAC wiI\Ra lution\STVAC.272ndStrmt.doc
2 272Id Street Vacation
clr, OFIEEMIjIT DOPY RECEIVES
JUL 01 1999
_
4
JJN 2 9 1999 City Attomey '
MAIL TO: CITYOF KENT APPLICANT: �l=l
CITY CLERK 1
CITY OF KENT NAME: A f r 11
Property Management
j �4(aa
220 So. 4th Ave. Address:
Kent, WA 98032 - 2 ( tA ?5-no7
Attn: SPYr'> pG �er-
Phone:
STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION
Dear Mayor and Kent City Council:
We, the undersigped abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request
that certain 5 l r rE f herby be vacate. (Genera ocation)
(Z77- ✓)/7 /t �(�, I` /If�P�f rcn7 'f- ( 3
Legal description
(Must Contain Total Square Feet of Area Sought To Bye Vacated)
BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
Sufficient proof, copy of deed contract etc. supported by King County
Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without
these a "CURRENT" title report shall be required. When Corporations,
Partnerships etc. are being signed for, then proof of individual's
authority to sign for same shall also be submitted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT #
SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK & PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG
282205-9042-08
J.G. Kenp Highlands LLC
G _ r ✓.• �� 282205-9170-02
J.G. Kent-
�ighlands, LLC /
�. J V f— r��, ; 332205-9135-09
J.G. Kent
,Uig hl ands, LLC
�I )�'�', '� 332205-9112-06 PAR eEc }
J.G. Kent Highlands, LLC
332205-9124-02 f'AA?emt Q
$150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Land Value Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Deed Accepted Date
Trade Accepted _ Date _
5224-33A
2Pn 41h AVF SO. I KENT.WAS14INGTON 98032 589S I ENGINEEnING )206)859.3383/OPERA W jB jT1AX 11.111 33
JON 2 9 1999 D
ITTyCC)FL E ENT
,RK
(1J '
y Pl Y
T
4600• 6019'
33
p;q
]b 45• i
OL
Ul
I �
• � P
R
'eaaa•
JUN-14-99 04 :39 PM VAN. CLEAVE. ASSOC 253 588 3821 P. 01
2 9 isgs
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
VAN CLEAVE & ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYORS
112 CANDLEWYCK DRIVE WEST, LAKEWOOD, WASHINGTON 98499
PHONE (253) 588-3821
June 14 , 1999
VACATION DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT PORTION OF SOUTH EAST 272nd STREET LYING IN THE SOUTHEAST
ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 28 , AND THE
NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 33 ,
TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST , W.H. AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
A STRIP OF LAND 50 FEET IN WIDTH LYING 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE; BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY CORNER
TO SECTIONS 28 AND 33 ; THENCE NORTH 88 ' 57 ' 29" WEST ALONG THE
SECTION LINE BETWEEN SAID SECTIONS 725 . 00 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF
SAID CENTER LINE.
EXCEPT FROM SAID STRIP THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR S. S.H.NO. 5-A ( KENT-
KANGLEY ROAD ) AND 132nd AVENUE SOUTH EAST
Prepared By
Kenneth W. VanC save RPLS 1 99
�2399
L L
CC 99-799
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: STREET VACATION, HAWLEY ROAD - RESOLUTION SETTING
HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/
Planning Committee, adoption of Resolution No. setting
September 7th as the public hearing date for the Hawley Road
Street Vacation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 6K
nap � I
K-MART °so z
I ( ) KENT SP 83-7 8409270783 pki °I�
N 8.9 /9.IS W 737.d1.1'i In tN y,
K-MART L�3�.88 >✓6.9.rs_a-14V �I�v
n__ T SP 83-7 8409270783 4
E_ j2
r
LOT 2 N I 2
LOT 2 ; ^�
N PO4 00
x
N
T"9 bae i ti O Bab D 2 I r
�� oa o E IZ b'e�� J =
-- E-i2 — - ��— ,: j Y
--L /✓-Aq--.3a-9OLA
�.,3 — 7✓-e9-30=LrE�_. >3e1 ; --- — 71e--- I
_ N0-4,.soe
r ~� W 69-49.3oW Ll.9.9! (!tJ E I �(LG9 73 �'e9-41-90 E
��.A9
co. "ry ro erArc �N
o
/. •r reo fJ9.s. Od°32�
e pJ O Oo L07 f SO
a e9-4�.3o e (Mvr.)
5 09. 45. 30 r P
7/0 a0e03 zz
� o
b'
N e9-19. !O W r1/.r0 y Qr I u
a Q�
KENT ;SP 78-36 tJ`wR o
7812190862 J.L. ASSOCIATES d
J.L. ASSOC-11j, KENT SP N 78- 36 7812190862
I P°g
PCL. 2 PCL. 2 PCL. I D w o
b ;p vks
�y� by � ? I• �°► °yeti 40 \5
T DG. o— ti� 7 Q a�v or
16,4 Is
`Q'✓d. a h � °LPL I�+ h , FOL RLLINA/NNMCM 7D CnY"1
<S S t IlC� P.T.7f ro 37
J' Ti D
io+" SFr fj� �! ° 2
ie4 O' r0
3c•,pvfy GB JL�v � ?J �
"+zoo ;Jf_ _1!L_—_—__ 1_S_.._LI
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, regarding the vacation of a portion of
Hawley Road, a dedicated, unopened street lying
generally south of Willis Street (SR 516), north of the
Green River and west of Washington Avenue (a/k/a West
Valley Highway), and setting the public hearing on the
proposed street vacation for September 7, 1999.
WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by Ronald
and Elaine Wagers and Signature Pointe Limited Partnership to vacate a portion of
Hawley Road, a dedicated, unopened street lying generally south of Willis Street (SR
516), north of the Green River and west of Washington Avenue (a/k/a West Valley
Highway), in the City of Kent, King County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, the petition is signed by the owners of at least two-thirds of
the property abutting that portion of Hawley Road that is now being sought to be vacated;
and
WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting
the vacation of a portion of Hawley Road shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent
City Council at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 7, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City
1 Hawley Road Vacation
Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and
cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Ch. 35.79 RCW.
SECTION 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval
or rejection or other information from the Public Works Department and other appropriate
departments and shall transmit information to the Council so that the Council may
consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on September 7, 1999.
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 and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,on the
day of ' 1999.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P.\Civil\Resolution\STVAC.32ndAveSouth.doc r,
2 Hawley Road Vacation
CITY OF f�
RECEIVED l5
JUL 0 Z VDD
FROPEft Y MANGE CITY ENT
CL/f 9
MAIL, TO: APPLICANT:
CITY OF KENT NAME: Ronald L. :lagers
Property Management
220 So. 4th Ave. Address: 1.0. Box 1994
Kent, WA 98032
Attn: Auburn, Wa 98071
Phone: 253-639-0551
STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION
Dear Mayor and Kent City Council:
We, the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully request
that certain Anj-I`lo... of Pan( hereby be vacated. (General Location)
/-J/i1UC,t Y IZOf11) )
Legal description
(Must Contain Total Square Feet S f Area sought To Be Vacated)
WEST END OF N. WILLIS ST. WHERE IT�t` IOS AT SO. SIDE OF K3P:T_DES NOINES
RD. AND EAST EDGE OF SIGNATURE POINTE APARTMENTS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SEE EXHIBIT A-1
A-2
BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
To meet requirement set forth by city of Kent for the construction
of Signature Pointe Apartments
Sufficient proof, copy of deed contract etc. supported by King County
Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without
these a "CURRENT" title report shall be required. When Corporations,
Partnerships etc. are being signed for, then proof of individual's
authority to sign for same shall also be submitted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must correspond with legal description.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT #
SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, BLOCK & PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG
$150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Land Value Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. _
I Accepted Date _
de Accepted Date
5226-33A
jJIUMKILA
EXHIBIT
220 am AV[ SO, I KFNT,WASIIINGTON 98012 SA95 i ENGINEERING (206)859 3383 1 OPERATIONS(2961859 31951 FAX 1859 3334
EXHHIIT"A^ (1 w S
STREET VACATION-HAWLEY ROAD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ya J
Cl7y CF KE
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,QftFaLe rd T
EAST,W.M.,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE C.C.THOMPSON DONATION
LAND CLAIM WITH THE CENTER LINE OF WEST MEEKER STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN
SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 60 OF SURVEYS,PAGE 170,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTH 00°36'51"WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE,A DISTANCE OF 1,390.46 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SR 516;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES:
NORTH 73°53'17"EAST A DISTANCE OF 24.59 FEET TO A P01NT 140 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 193+00;
NORTH 79°36'38"EAST A DISTANCE OF 239.36 FEET TO A POINT 125 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 195+50;
NORTH 84009'52"EAST A DISTANCE OF 231.20 FEET TO A POINT 110 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 197+90.19'.
NORTH 87026'46"EAST A DISTANCE OF 210.05 FEET TO A POINT 100 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 200+00;
SOUTH 89°49'30"EAST A DISTANCE OF 83.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF HAWLEY
ROAD;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89049'30"EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SR 516,A
DISTANCE OF 24.73 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF HAWLEY ROAD AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 35*51'36"EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,A DISTANCE OF 235.61 FEET TO A
POINT ON A CURVE,CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY,THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH
03°39'40"WEST A DISTANCE OF 55.00 FEET:
THENCE SOUTHEASTE"ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50-28'44",AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 48.AFIET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF HAWLEY ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 35-5 I'36-VEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTELY MARGIN,A DISTANCE OF 263.49
FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SR 516:
THENCE NORTH 89049'30"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN,A DISTANCE OF 24.73 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 4,825 SQUARE FEET,MORE OR LESS.
ti Q•�O
7
f n} v v j !1�/ r J�
- V
EXHIBIT"A"
STREET VACATION-HAWLEY ROAD CC1 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 7Y KENT
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23,TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,RANGE 41<
EAST,W.M.,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF THE C.C.THOMPSON DONATION
LAND CLAIM WITH THE CENTER LINE OF WEST MEEKER STREET AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN
SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 60 OF SURVEYS,PAGE 170,RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTH 00°36'51"WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE,A DISTANCE OF 1,390.46 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SR 516;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
DISTANCES:
NORTH 73053'17"EAST A DISTANCE OF 24.59 FEET TO A POINT 140 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 193+00;
NORTH 79°36'38"EAST A DISTANCE OF 239.36 FEET TO A POINT 125 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 195+50;
NORTH 84009'52"EAST A DISTANCE OF 231.20 FEET TO A POINT 110 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 197+90.19;
NORTH 87°26'46"EAST A DISTANCE OF 210.05 FEET TO A POINT 100 FEET RIGHT OF HIGHWAY
ENGINEER'S STATION 200+00;
SOUTH 89049'30"EAST A DISTANCE OF 83.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF HAWLEY
ROAD AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 35051'36"EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 239.67 FEET TO A POINT ON
A CURVE,CONCAVE SOUTHERLY,THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 20°02'00"EAST
A DISTANCE OF 55.00 FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23*41'40",AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 22.75 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF HAWLEY ROAD;
THENCE NORTH 35*51'36"WEST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,A DISTANCE OF 235.61 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SR 516;
THENCE NORTH 89°49'30"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN,A DISTANCE OF 24.73 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 4,735 SQUARE FEET,MORE OR LESS.
Jti o WAS,
EEXaP�s
Jul. _ 1 D
6 399
C1C TY C RK,.
d H ab� ��1 9j96 p5 D cl
K—MART 0 D-z
e W of (N
KENT SP 83-7 6409270783
N e9.lf.js w 7i7'dst' "
_ h
K—MART -.-L797.B8 d 69-19-4-5W +I�
T SP83-7 B409270783 E_
fitO I N
LOT 2 N =
LOT 2IT
Sl
T sg N ��
N 110 2� b''�5 'A(,
L C9S *59 �b p Z I w
°b 0B
Uj
— ,' A�-�Q_spa
i3 7V-Q9:3E=t1'P- _, b50 ic•�t
39 -f/6f-49.30w L4f.7! (Jed -•'Lt.e, 3 � df' �-
r bb',�) 1
eo�.�rY ro er.+r� szost� o�et c� �\
0
_ 77 �Io �'°�p32=
•T teofl!•f• t07 f So
3 Ef.♦!:30 E (Nwy.) a e9. 4J. 30C
7/0�oeo3 zz °
\ .*
1 e 11 b
Nd9-49• low lizso ` _• v�1:.d u
JAW
cr KE.NT,.:SP 78-36 N c-jJ
7812190862 J.L. ASSOCIATES
,y9 J.L. ASSOC. KENT SP N 78- 36 7812190862
poR' l� PCL. � PCL. 15 0 g c o
PCL. 2 v� Pc• o I� h a
-PO yo. P 77T u�1 Ab k1 y`Z 40
.gyp, 1V � � ob °.� :•
...' -o_ ,�lry 4
36.�� E ��• b I�a�
A-3ay A. g 7 b�5b a /;
GD P e0 P �l
t.1 hFOt t[CINd/IlNMfM ID City ^" LAN
01
y `b P. � ee.ei..e w � f is h
\ U 60..37
2 °p� 4J5t _ - - �'j7� - - - - n
ul
• - .:.;f��oY'• i..►�Nc�,�s4.T. �HAWC 4 op�1 qo v� I� I � v
b r
• .' rt •tr.p �i2oth" Fr RQ �o�.�t y � �VoP �)
• ��. _ O ' �� �9si to s•st w �
S. L
1j•1 �
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar,
1 . SUBJECT: KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance and authorization for
expenditure of Kent Drinking Driver Task Force grant funding
as follows :
Law Enforcement Education Partnership Program (LEEP
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED)
By the U. S . Department of Education under the Federal Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
7/l/99-6/30/2000 $28, 500 . 00
Kent Drinking Driver Countermeasure Program (DDTF)
Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
Federal 402 Transportation/Highway Safety Funds
1999/2000 $28 , 012 . 50
2000/2001 $28, 012 . 50
The Police Department requests Council acceptance of the above
grants .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to Public Safety Committee dated 7/16/99
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. 6L
MEMORANDUM
TO: COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
cc: Jackie Bicknell
Lt Glenn Woods
Mary Ann Kern
FROM: Nancy Mathews, Coordinator
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force
SUBJECT: COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS
DATE: July 16, 1999
The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force has been notified of grant funding:
Law Enforcement Education Partnership Program (LEEP)
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED)
by the U.S. Department of Education under the Federal Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.
Youth Conference Support for Kent $ 28,500.00
and 8 So King County School District
junior/senior high youth
7/1/99 through 6/30/2000
Kent Drinking Driver Countermeasure Program (DDTF)
Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)
Federal 402 Transportation/Highway Safety Funds
To support Kent highway safety education: 1999/2000 $ 28,012.00
programs (DUI, occupant protection, 2000/2001 28,012.00
bicycle helmet, pedestrian, speed, etc); $ 56,025.00
includes matching coordinator salary
7/1199 through 6/30/2001 (TWO YEAR)
Request Council Approval to accept LEEP and WTSC grants and establish budget
documents, as required.
kccgmta
r Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT FUNDING -
AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to enter into contract
negotiations for Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Funds .
A maximum of $84, 150 . 00 of ATOD Funds has been awarded to the
City subject to successful negotiation and completion of a King
County Contract .
Seattle King County Health Department
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division
Category 1, ATOD Prevention Project
Two Year Youth Conference Support for Kent
And Eight South King County School Districts '
Junior/Senior High Youth
7/1/99 through 6/30/2001 $84 , 150 . 00
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Public Health of Seattle & King County
dated 7/22/99
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. 6M
Tublic Health
Seattle & King County
HEALTHY PEOPLE. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.
Alonzo L Plough, Ph.D., MPH, Drrecror
July 22, 1999
TO: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police
Citv of Kent Police Department
FR: Henry D. Ziegler. MD, MPH. Manager,
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division
Pubiic Health— Seattle and King County
Norma Jaeser. Alcohol/Drug County Coordinator
Division of Mental Health and Chemical Abuse Dependency Services
King County Department of Community and Human Services
RE: Prevention Request for Proposal (RFP)
Thank you for submitting an application in response to the Prevention RFP for the 1999-2001
biennium. We were very pleased with the number of proposals received and the quality of these
proposals. We believe the proposals were better and more responsive than ever before. This
memorandum is to notify you regarding the results of the Prevention RFP for services to be
delivered during the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001.
Your application was reviewed by a panel of raters with expertise in alcohol, tobacco and other
drug (ATOD) prevention services. The final decision was made on behalf of our respective
departments. We are pleased to announce that your application has been selected to receive
ATOD prevention funds for the 1999-2001 biennium. A maximum of$84.150.00 in Category
1 funds has been awarded to your organization for the 1999-2001 biennium based upon our s
allocation received from the State of Washington DSHS Division of Alcohol and Substance
Abuse. Funds will be contingent upon successful negotiation and completion of a King County
contract. With limited funds, each organization's budget for Category I and III needed to be
reduced by 6.5% in order for us to maximize the number of recipients and to ensure
geographic/cultural representation.
999 3rd Avenue,Suite 900 • Seattle,WA 98104 4039 9 City of Sfettl �f King County
T(206)296-4600(V/TDO) F(206)296-0166 •www.metrokc.gov/health �/Paw Scneil.Ma r Ron Sims.Fzecurrm
RrnKa ar NecrvNC vaoer
Public Health— Seattle & King County
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Prevention Program RFP
Page 2 of 2
For your information, enclosed are: (1) a description of the review/selection process; (2) a
summary of the RFP results; and (3) a summary of the applications submitted. We received a
total of$2,555,565.77 in requests with the following number of proposals per category:
❖ Category I,ATOD Prevention Projects: 27 proposals submitted totaling$2,243,683.69
❖ Category II,ATOD Prevention Mini-Grants: 6 proposals submitted totaling$33,654.08
❖ Category III, Partners in Prevention Program: 2 proposals submitted totaling$278,228.00
Overall, the proposals were very well written and responsive to the RFP guidelines. Those
proposals recommended for funding were selected because of their exceptional responsiveness to
the RFP and inclusiveness of prevention research/evaluation and community collaboration.
Other specific criteria included geographic distribution and cultural diversity.
A total of$1.1 million had been allocated through this RFP process ($900.000 for Category I,
$60.000 for Category H. and$140,000 for Category III). Due to the limited funding originally
allocated and the strength of the proposals, we decided to allocate an additional S323,156.50
from other funding sources to support services submitted in response to this RFP. With the
expanded allocation, we were able to support 56% of the applications received. The following
applications were funded for a total of$1,423,156.50:
•:• Category I,ATOD Prevention Projects: 15 proposals funded totaling $1.260,259.24
Category II, ATOD Prevention Mini-Grants: 6 proposals funded totaling$33,654.08
Category III. Partners in Prevention Program: 1 proposal funded totaling $129.243.18
Again, congratulations on your successful bid for funds. A program staff person will be
contacting you within the next couple of weeks to schedule an appointment for contract
negotiations. If you have any questions, please contact: Patricia Mouton at (206) 296-7552.
Enclosures
Cc: Dr. Alonzo Plough, Director. Public Health— Seattle & King County
Sharon Toquinto, ATOD Prevention Program Supervisor
Pat Mouton, Program Analyst II/Prevention Coordinator
Jackie Jamero Bergamo, Program Analyst II/Prevention Coordinator
Cheri McCoubrey, Program Analyst II/Prevention Coordinator
Carol Jernigan,Program Analyst I/Parenting Coordinator
Oh Sourichanh, Office Technician I
MEMORANDUM
TO: COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
cc: Jackie Bicknell
Lt Glenn Woods
Mary Ann Kern
FROM: Nancy Mathews, Coordinator
Kent Drinking Driver Task Force
SUBJECT: COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER GRANT CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS
DATE: July 27, 1999
The Kent Drinking Driver Task Force has been notified of grant funding:
Seattle King County Health Department
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division
Category 1, ATOD Prevention Project—Two (2) Year
Youth Conference Support for Kent $ 84,150.00
and 8 So King County School Districts'
junior/senior high youth
7/1/99 through 6/30/2001
kccgmta2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: View Regulation - Ordinance
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending
Section 15 . 08 . 060 of the Kent City Code relating to view
protection regulations, clarifying that the purpose of the
regulations is to promote and protect public vistas of the Green
River Valley by encouraging development in ways compatible with
the protection of these view corridors, and further making other
related changes .
3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURES REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No . 6N
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending Section 15.08.060 of the
Kent City Code relating to view protection regulations,
clarifying that the purpose of the regulations is to promote
and protect public vistas of the Green River Valley by
encouraging development in ways compatible with the
protection of these view corridors, and further making other
related changes.
I
WHEREAS, the visual environment of the City of Kent is strongly
characterized by scenic vistas from the East and West Hills of the City to the Green River
Valley; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.08.060 of the Kent City Code regulates
development in hillsides to protect views in the City; and
WHEREAS, with the growth and development in the City of Kent,the city
council believes that it is in the City's interest to continue to promote and protect the city's
view corridors to minimize obstruction of the scenic vistas to the Green River Valley, and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to clarify that the purpose of the view
corridor protection regulations is to promote and protect these public vistas; and
WHEREAS, view regulations allow for development of one-story
structures in the view protection area and that"story" should be further defined; and
1 View Regulations
WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that there are certain situations in
which the regulations would not achieve their intended purpose and, therefore, finds it
appropriate to grant the planning director the authority to waive or modify view
regulations in such situations; and
WHEREAS,the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing
on June 28, 1999, and recommended amendments to the view regulations in section
15.08.060 of the zoning code; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 15.08.060 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 15.08.060. View corridor protection regulations on hillside development.
A. Purpose.
1. The visual environment of the City of Kent is strongly characterized by
scenic vistas to the Green River valley from the sloyes 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 buildings on hillsides in order to protect
e€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.
to be pr-eteeted and enhaneed.
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 . The regulations of this
2 View Regulations
section shall be interpreted and enforced at the time of development plan review. The
regulations of this section shall not, however, prohibit construction of any building efce
with a building height of 25 feet or less, as measured from natural or
finished grade, whichever is lower, on any legal lot of record.
B. View regulations defined. 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 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 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.
I I
y
0�O. J
. C
I
3 View Regulations
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.
Horizontal View Angle
9I f.
NIr7
;5 I
90•
W
4 View Regulations
Vertical View Angle
Lot Line
Horizontal
64 S•
Lot Line--,
(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
i
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 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.
1
t
Geographic slope
Center oz Lob
Line
.N
�L
5 View Regulations
(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
enter of Unit
Lot Line--y
Horizontal
Geographical
Horizontal . Lot Line Center of Lot
j_ -4-IL—8arking/Storage Level
Lot Line
(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.
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
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 to allow adjacent property owners to assess the
view impact of the proposed variance. The pole structure shall be in dace at least ten OD
days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed variance
6 View Regulations
SECTION 1. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after the date of publication as provided by law.
01
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 1999.
APPROVED: day of , 1999.
PUBLISHED: day of 51999.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. ,passed
by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P�.\CiviAOrdinancelview regulation.doc
7 View Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 3, 1999
TO: Mayor/Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: 1999 Traffic Striping
Bid opening for this project was held on July 29"' with 3 bids received. The apparent
low bid was submitted by Stripe Rite in the amount of $62,575.60. The Engineer's
estimate was $57,847.15.
The Public Works Director recommends awarding this contract to Stripe Rite.
BID SUMMARY
Stripe Rite $62,575.60
Action Services Corp. $75,473.20
Apply-A-Line $80,503.48
Engineer's Estimate $57,847.15
MOTION:
Councilmember_ UA4k moves, Councilmember seconds that the 1999
Traffic Striping contract be awarded to Stripe Rite for the bid amount of $62,575.60.
STRIPING
� TT
"A
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM (TOWNHOUSE) ZONING (ZCA-99-5) -
APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This item was before the City Council on
July 20, 1999 and was sent to the Public Works and Planning
Committee for their review. The Committee reviewed ZCA-99-5 on
August 2 , 1999 .
3 . EXHIBITS: new cover memo dated 8/2/99 to Public Works
Committee, cover memo dated 7/20/99 to the City Council, staff
report dated 6/28/99 with attachments, and LU&PB minutes of
6/28/99 .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land use and 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 8seconds
to approve/ the Land Use and Planning Board' s
recommendation for multifamily residential townhouse zoning
(ZCA-99-5) and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance. cto
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. /7A
CITY OF AT 1
MEMORANDUM
Jim White, Mayor
rNVICTN
1999
To: COUNCILMEMBER TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND PLANNING &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
From: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
Re: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT- #ZCA-99-5
At its regular meeting of July 20, 1999, the City Council referred the Land Use &
Planning Board's recommendation to create a townhouse zoning district (MR-T) to the
Planning & Public Works Committee. The Board had held a public hearing on this
matter on June 28, 1999 after several workshops and a tour of existing condominium
developments.
The packet of information which was included in the Council's July 20th meeting agenda
is again included herewith. Staff will be available to discuss this matter and answer
questions from the Committee.
Cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
FSN/mp:P:adminitownhome.rec
1
CITY OF ;�.� 1.
Jim White, Mayor
fN V[CTA
Planning Department(253) 856-5454/Fax(2�3) 8�6-6454
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. 1n 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 Planning 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.
2201th 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 I-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 home: classes 1-C, 11-A, I1-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)
9ZCA-99-5 (MR-TZoning) 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)
MT- 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
Jul}, 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.
FNTS\mw1P: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 ifsomeone 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 staffs 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 orfnished
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.
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 Mkt-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.
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. Sarterstrom 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 266t°, 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 Rurridge, 27001 114te 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 cu=tly 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 4-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 Sn..-3er of Snyder Homes who
built two planned unit developments in the County which have since .!=n 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,27608114"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 stop, 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 s 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 reconsideration 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 direei convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic
accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption 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.
ectfully Submitted,
J es P. Ham
Secretary
CITY Of W ��
IxytcTw
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
TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLAID NING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR-T)
#ZCA-99-5
Background:
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 May 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 dense}, 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: "Eapa?ld home
'--'Q atr.AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE r2531 85r,.5?00
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-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 sues,
manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other
options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities. "
Zonine Strategies for Encouragin; 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
'2 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:
Multifamily 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-B
■ Home da_v 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, 11-13, 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
Apple
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
Citv.
ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T)
LUPB June 28, 1999
Page 6
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 famih residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial
services.
(� FS.pm P:t4dminitownhome.doc
Enclosures: Attachment A,B &C
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
ATTACH NA ENT A L b, rr
Sec. 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P=Principally Permitted Uses _
S=Special Uses a A
C=Conditional Uses s 32
s e
A=Accessory Uses A o
1 c;
s
y n R E St W
fL tr fr fS E L' �c m fJ u a �cI V a`C}i
C 0/ A w M C
w ` 75 Q M L)
:a O U
3 o ti ti ri c:
>_ S a)
d S H g O c� 2 c o o c o
cm Cr N rn cn rn Z G V V o 52 v v d
< W W N V3 N t!t 2 U n C O U U C7 O 5 a i 2, 7 tD
One singirfamity dwelling per lot I P I P I P P P I P P I P tP I P I P I I I I I I I P I P I I I I All)I A(t) A(t)II All)
One duplex per lat I l I I P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
One modular home per lot I P I P P I P I P I P I P I P I P P P I I I I I
Duplexes I I I I l I I P P I P
MuRffartelydweWngs 1 I ( I P I P P I ItlP) -`�I P I P I I I P I P I I I I I I(iSl
Multifamily d"Wags for senior biotin: I ( I I I I I I I I I P(2J I P P I I I f im I ism I I 1 I I
Mobile homes and manufactured homes I I I I I I I I ( I P I I I 11
Mottle hone Perks 11 I I I I(3)1(3)1(3) (3)I P ( I 1 I 1 I
Group homes class I-A P I P I P P I P I P P I P P P P P I P { P I P P C C c C P
Group homes class 68 I I I P P I P I P I P P P I P C C C C P
Group homn class 6C I I I I I I I C C I P I P I I P I P ( P I P I C c I C C P
Group homes class 0-A I I I ( I I C c c I C I I c I C I c I c I C C C _ I C I I
Group homes class0.8 ► I I I I I I I IcIr- C CI ( Clcicic CICIC Clcl
Group homes class 11-C I I I I I I I { C C I C I C I I C I c I c I c C I c I c I C I C I I I I
IGroup homes class Ili I I I I I I I I I I I I I Icicicic cicic cicl I I I I I I
Rebuddiaccessory uses for existing I I P(6)I I I 1 ( I I I I I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)
ewdringa
Transfbonal housing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P(7)I P(7)I I I I
Guest cottage and houses All)I A(!)I All)I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I All)I I I I {
Rooming and boarding of not more than ( I ( A I A I A I A I A A I A I A I A I I I I
three persons
Farm womer accommodations I'n 1 A(9)I, 1 I I 1 I I I I I ( 1 I I I I 1 I A(9)1 1 I I I I
Accessory uses and buditga A A A A I A A A II A A A A A I( A I A A A A I( A A A A A I( A A A A I
wslomm" aoourtenam to a permiQed I I(11) I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I
Accessory dwelling units ((" I I " IAI " I " I " 1 " I " 1 " I IAI I I I I " I ( I ( " I " I I I I I
10) (t0) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) 110) (10) 110) (10) (10)
Accessory 11mg quarters I I I I ( I I I I I A ( A I A I A A AIA I A I A I A ( A I A I A I A I A
(14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) (14)
Home oceupanons I A I I A A A I All All(All A I A I " I " I I I I I I I I I I I I
(11) 01) (it) (11) (11) (11) (11) (it) (11) (11) (11)
Service buildings I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I I I I ( I I I I { {
Stone buldrn s and sloe a of A A A A A A A A A A A A
g 9 9 1
( reusauonalvehicles (15)I 1(16) (16)I(16)1(16)1116)I(16)I(16)I(16)1116)1(161I
Drive-in churches: "tan: faciliu s: C C C C C C c c C C C c C C C C C c I C C C C C c C C
Drive-in Churches, retirement homes, (12)
convalescent homes and otter welfare
facliitlas whelner privately or publicly
operated, facilities for renabilitation or
correction.ett
Sec. 15.04.060. Transportation,Public and Utilities Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
lox IrincipaUy Permitted Uses
{special uses a
C■GondiUonal Uses e
32
A a Accessory Uses 2 o�1
e
_ C CCC
we 33 MO 7 a
E '•
* c c c� c� ,2 ace_ 443
CM ch CX
w Cn CD CO
N .? T uP R 4 C7 S a V eV te7 J c� V
z c� `b' c� c� to o c�
Commerdal parking lots orsouctures I I ( I I C I C I II I II I I
Transportation and tnuM facilities C I C C I C C I C C I C I C I C I CIC I C C I C C C I C C ( C C C I C I C C P(i) C
Ranlway and bus depots,tun stands I I C ( C
OtIDtyand transportation 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 C
Oectrical substations,pupping or
regulating dances forth*transmission of
rratsr,pas,stsam,petroleu+4 set
Public facilities.Rmhouses.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,GbnaAa and adenirnistratiwe
officas of pmemmental apsncfa,primary
and secondar schools,vocational
schools and colleges.
assory uses and bufldngs 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 AM .
�onnaty appnrtruot to a pertrdWd
2d r
Sec. 15.04.090. Service Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
Key
P a Principally Pemtitted Uses -
S a Special Uses c cTI
C:Conddional Uses
A=Accessory Uses s s m
m � _
c
m > ¢ Se R
m ,�
_ 32 32 3232 32 � �.. M a �Re 1� Ti
�• d
m m 4- m A C �C c V c c �_ �_ CmCCU r.
A c tL - S U IL rt W ! gcg i 3
S m
< i N T a t7 d V C w U N C7 Silt c c C7 V
< to t�rr r�ir CO t Cr_ in in � � � � � z c�.t � � � v L 0
Finance,insurance,R>,estate cervices I i l l l I I I I I I I I I P 1 n�I P I P I I P I P I P I I P P I Pm I I P(3)
Personal services:laundry:dry cleaning; 1 ( I I 1 I I I I I P P IP(1 P ( P I P 1 C I IP(t0 (10 i Pin I I Pp)
barter,salons:shoe repair,laundereaes I 00}
Mortuaries j j I j I I I (12>r i 1 P I P j C I j I P(3)
Home day care I P I P 1 P 1 P I P I P 1 P 1 P I P P I P 1 P j P ( P I P P I P I P P I P P I P P P P P P I P
Day urn center I C 1 C I C I C C ( C j C 1 C I P 1 P I P I P I P P j P 1 P 1 P P P I P P ( P P I P P I P P I P
Business services,duplicating and blue ( I I I III I I I I P(1 P P P P P P P P(1) P(3)
printing.travel agencies and empicyntent
agencies
Building maintananc.and put control I 1 I I 77 I I I I ! I P ! P P I I P P PM I
Outdoor Storage(including trud6 heavy P P A A A A A P
empment and contractor storage yards
as a0owed by Development Standards —.
Sections 1&0&190 a 1S.W210) r.`
Rental and leasing services for ars, ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I P P P I ( I P P P(2)
trucks,trsUers,furniture and tools
I Mcruding body waft)t services
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I C I I I P I P I P I 1 P ( 1 I C(s}
aeCon Upholstery III.TV;eieetnial: I I I I I I I I I I P IP(121 P I I I P I P I I I P I P I Pm I I P(3)1
Professional SOMces:Medical:dints I I I I I I I I P P I I P I P I P I 1 P P (P(1)I I PM
fa and other health re related strvldes
I heavy Ecuroment and Truck Repair I 1 ! I I I ! I ! I I I I I I I P I P ) P I I I I C I P�
Conrad Constromon Service Offices: 1p(16P
Offices: I IP(161 P P (16 IP(17)(P(11�P(l)I P 1PI
Budding constu=on:plumbing:pavin
and landscaping
( Educational Services: vocational:race; I I I I P I P P I P I P ( I P I P (P1 )I I P(3)
car.-ffmur—dancing:barber and beauty
Czu=n 1 s(4)1 1 S(4)I S(4)1 S(n 1 Su)I Sw 1 Sid)1 Soil S(4)1 Sm l i l S(4)1 s(4)1 I S(4)I I I S(4)j S(4)I S(4)1 I I
Adrumstetve and Drofessional olT1rn— I 1 I I I I P IP(121 P P I C I P P I P (
9eners! I P I P I P(2)1 I f` )
1
Municipal uses and buildings I I I I I I I I I I I IP(13 P(t 1 1 P I P 1P(131P(13 P(13 (13r(13 (13 P(13 `i(2)IP(1 (t
Researen,develooment and testing I I I I ( 11 I I I I I I I I I P P I P ( I P P PM (14
Planned Devefoornent Retail Sales I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I ( I I CM I
uAcemory uses and buildings A I A AM I A I A I A I A A A I A I A I A I I A I A ( A I A A I A)I(A)I A)� A I A A I A ( A rl-T,
nmmiariry appurtenant to a permitted (1s) (16) (19) (19} (is 16 (ti
Boarding lu rneis and breeding
eaubushments
Viurinary curio and vetennary hospitals 1 I C I 1 I I ( 1 1 I I I I I I P(6)1 I I P(9)I P(q)I P(6) C I I I
Adminim3eve or esecuare offices which I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P I I I I ( P I P I P {�
are part of a predominant Industrial
clieratiorL
015cn madental and necessary to the I I I I I I I I A A I A ILL
donduC,o!a pnntlpairy permitted use
2�
Sec. 15.04.110. Cultural, Entert2inment and Recreation Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
P=Principally Permitted Uses
S a Special Uses
o o 'mac
C a Conditional Uses s s ea
A=Accessory Uses o s
Q: dc-
qq f�a W .J
t�j C C d C C O et E C
C iT '(r.' or CMA N LN ` d trj 'y2 �O 3
w < E
.e E E E
-
c ti ti ti e E
< < Q C 4 U w C t, — z V G N cw a E � c�
1,rt C C7 U
CV.�
Perto gin Ig and cultural Mas d,�di�, uses.sum i I I I I I I I I PM) P P I I P I P I P I I I P I I IN
Hiatonc and monument adss I ( I I I I I I I I P I P
Public assembly Mdoort:sports facilities: P P P P P(2) P(2) P(2) P(t)
arras;auditoriums and alilbtiion halls,
bang alleys,dart Pl"g facillb", CM
sainting rinks.community dubs:athletic
tlubs:moeation centers:theaters
lescluding school facilities)
sintily(outdoor):
and annualsaw+t parks:tennis courts:Fairgrounds P P
l����nth n am go-can
i span use:Ctlnennes,parks. C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P(g) P(s) P(s) C m m C C C C C C
hrounds.Of courses and other
`ecretit faassodated Including
b Ildngs or C C C C C
recreation
awloyse mcmaHon areas I I I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I A I A I A I A
Pnrau dubs.frstrmal lodges,etc I C I C C I C I C C C ( C C I C C C I I C C C C I C i C I C 11 C C I C I C I C I C Pm
limmattonal vehicle parksIBC I i Pi� I P
Accessory uses and buildings A I A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Afa)
--tr anly appurtenant to a pe*n+rtied I I I I I ( I I
use ` I
Remabonal buildings in MHP I I I I I I I ( I I I I I A I ( I I I I I
�O
15.04.130. Resource Land Uses.
Zoning Districts
K I �
P=Principaly Perm)tted Uses A 6
S=Special Uses
S
C=Conditional Uses s 32 o
A=Accessory Uses c ¢ g Q
t �
S d or
S S U �QQ gE� �qE�
ari � tL C tea. Cr. C IL
1? w E E E c 1O c U
A Ea � m m � $Q U U U U a 2
TOP
C% p C GA 4n U U
4 Ln h I y CO EEn N I Z U G G O U U
Agnaimural uses(icluding whWmaM + P I P + P I I I I I I ( I J ( J I ( P I I I l
nursenos and greenhouses) I I II II I I II tI
Crop and Vwtammng P PIP PIP PIPIPIPIPIPIP I I I I ( I IPIPIP PIPIP
Stoops.nwubcwr q,pex wg and P P
cc veolon of apnenemral produ=Inot
including slaughtering or most packing)
Accessory uses and bugduigs I
A A A(1) A A A A JAIA A A A A A A A I) A A A A A A A I A I A A A
n SURRI lly appurtenant to a peennled I
use
stirs winds I AO) AR)I A(3) I I I I I I I I I I I NZ) I I I
l t
A7T/A CH ME N-T 8
Sec. 15.04.1 10. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards.
Zoning Dist7=
1O a
s
C V �
d
s s
a or S
A d * E or QSE
a�i m 32
or CC CX CC Q7
CD
Ta E E E & p o c o
m 0 2
w -F F y g Z 0
O� Oi D.' to (/� M'l [n fn •�
G G N r7 r W ww Of Of CC cr Cr ir Cr
C O d
C Cn I CO ( rn cn rn to 2
SF )f)uptexl SF Ouptaail MF I SF Mwp* MF I Si (Dusted MF
dwellling units perum Density:acre I owl
uwaCltlusia dULaClduwacld"acldWlacl (duaJAC IdYflac duslacl �O"acIdustac, �duslac�
Minimum lot area: 134,7001 t ac 134.700 16.000 1 9100 7,600 5.700 4A00 4.000 I.000 4,000 SAN 11.5001 4,000 tA00 t,S00f 4,000 SAN L5W
square feet or acres,as so ft Oil it aq ft aq ft so ft aq R aq it ft soft sq itaq ft eq ft aq it 2.500
res 9q it aq R loop
noted ( gotfl) oIt it I
`inimum lot width:felt 16o ft 160 ft l 50 ft 50 It150 ft I Soft 40 ft 40 R Soft 140 ft 80 ft loft 40 it 80 ft 80 ft 40 It110 itI t0 ft
Maximum site 30% 50% 30% 30% 43% 45% 10% "% 1 55% 40% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 45% 5 40% 30%
coverage:percent of I (5) (5) I (5) M I (5) (5) (5) ( 5%(5) (5) (5) (5) I (s) (s)
she
Minimum yard (22)
requirements:feet
Front yard 20ft 30 ft 20ft left 10ft left left left 10R loft loft 1011t 20ft 10111, 10R 20ft left loft 20ft
(6) (7) (6) (5) (6) (6) (6l (6) (6) (9) (6) (6) (6) (1) (6) R)
(1) (6) (6) (6) (8) 0) till 0) (1) (1) (6) (t) (9)
(9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (5) 0) 0) 0)
Side yard 15 it (10) 15ft 5ft 5ft 5it 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft (11) 5R 5ft (11) 5R 5ft (11)
Side yard on flanking 20ft 20it loft left loft loft loft loft loft loft loft 15ft left loft 15 it loft loft 15ft
str"t of a comer lot (9) (9) 19) (9) (9) (9) (q) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9)
Rearyarti 20it 15ft 5R 5ft 5ft 5R 5it 5ft Ift 5ft tit 20R 5R Ira 20ft 5ft Ira 20ft
Additional (12) (13) (12) (14) (14) (14)
setbacksldistances (15) (15) (15)
between buildings
MeigM limdanon:in 15 2 stryJ 2-5 2 5 23 2-5 2.52.5 23 2 5 2.5 2.5 ]atryl 2.52.5 3 so* 2.5 2.54 aoyl
storieslnot to exceed in w O 35 ft stryf w" s" sbyr 9" :fib IVY a" wyl aUyf 40 itsty say( 40 ft a" a" 50 it
feet 35 ft (17) 35 ft 35 it35 ft 35 it 35 ft 30 ft 30 ft 25 It 30 it 35 ft 30 it 35 It 30 ft 35 ft
(t11 (tt1
Maximum rmpervrous i Q 40% 40% 50% 611% 70% 75% 75% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70%
surtax:percent of I (19%) I (191 I (a) I a3) (p) (23) I (23) (19) I (19) 112) (19) (19) (19) (19) I (19)
total Parcel area
Zem tit line and The prwrarone n Se -on-U U300.310.=.and 330 ehet apply.
clustering (24)
signs , I The sW fegutaome of Chapter 1S06•lull apply.
Offstreet parking I The off-eaeat partrrrq reoo of Ctrapur ISM Mau apply.
Landscaping The un*wAmg reaurernerr a of Chapter 15.07 s1W apply.
Multi-tamiy transition I I I I R31 RS) R�
Ana
Multi-family design I I (26) (26) I (26)
review
Additional stanoards Additional atanoams for$Pmk Maas am coed W In Chapter 1501 and Chaptr ISM.
120) (20)
(21)
A-T TAC H M E-NT C
ZONING 4 15.09.050
and zoning map amendments may be plywood face generic notice board, to ~� t
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's
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 proposed rezone will not kird?dv
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 genera'
use of a four (4) foot by four (4) foot welfare of the citizens of the city.
Supp No IS 1288.1
i I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 3 , 1999
Category Bids
1 . SUBJECT: 1999 TRAFFIC STRIPING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening for this project was
July 29th. Due to time constraints, the bid information is not
included in the Council packets . The Public Works Director
will make a recommendation to award at the August 3rd Council
meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the 1999 City of Kent Traffic Striping contract be awarded
to
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 8A
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT-6 w ka,-
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ( � � 3'3�
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PARKS COMMITTEE bo "%1 17
F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
r
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
July 13, 1999
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly, Sandy Amodt, Tom Brotherton
STAFF PRESENT: Allen Emerson, Norm Angelo, Ed Crawford, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell
The meeting was called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5:09PM.
Approval of Minutes of May 25, 1999
Committee Member Sandy Amodt moved to approve the minutes of June 22, 1999. The motion was
seconded by Committee Member Tom Brotherton and carried 3-0.
Grant from U.S. Dept. of Justice for Equipment Related to Weapons of Mass Destruction
Fire Chief Norm Angelo said 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 was for purchasing and distributing personal protective, chemical, biological, and
radiological detection and decontamination equipment to local response agencies. Equipment is
provided to the Kent agency as part of the mutual aid resources available under the mutual aid
agreements in place among fire, EMS, hazardous materials service providers, and law enforcement.
Specific equipment distributed to the City of Kent includes chemical and biological detectors, escape
masks, chemical and biological suits, and SWAT suits and boots.
Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend that this item be placed
on the Consent Calendar for the July 20, 1999 Council meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign
the certification and Assurances Document and the Distribution Agreement. The motion was
seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0.
Donation to Volunteers — Acceptance
Sergeant Allen Emerson of the Kent Police Department addressed the Committee with a request to
accept a donation from the Kent Rotary Club and to establish a separate project account for the Police
Volunteers for receiving contributions and expending funds in relationship to the volunteer programs.
On May 8, 1999, the Kent Rotary Club held its annual auction at which it had been arranged that half
of the money raised by any group that had prepurchased a table would be given back in the form of a
donation. The Volunteers in Police purchased two tables and raised a total of$6546 of which half, or
$3,273, was returned to them by the Rotary Club.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Public Safety Committee recommend to the full Council approval
to establish a special project account for the Police Volunteers and to accept a donation from
the Kent Rotary'Club in the amount of$3,273. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton
and carried 3-0.
Public Safety Committee,7/13/99 2
Signage for Bicvcle Helmet Ordinance
Signage for the Bicycle Helmet Ordinance was deferred to the Public Works Department to bring
back information to the next Public Safety Committee meeting on July 27, 1999.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:22PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
July 6, 1999
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Sandy Amodt, Leona Orr(filling in for
Tim Clark)
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Ford, Steve Ohlde, Norm Angelo, Joye Honeycutt, Marty Mulholland, Joe
Lorenz, Larry Webb, Stan Wade, Don Wickstrom, Brent McFall, Bob Hutchinson, Jim Harris, Fred
Satterstrom, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell
The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 3:29PM.
Approval of Minutes of June 15, 1999
Committee Member Sandy Amodt moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 1999. The motion was
seconded by Committee Member Leona Orr and carried 3-0.
Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 6/30/99
Finance Director May Miller presented the vouchers dated June 30, 1999. Leona Orr moved to
approve the vouchers. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0.
King_County EMS Regional Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
Fire Chief Norm Angelo said a Regional Purchasing Program for the purchase of EMS supplies and
equipment was implemented under the 1998-2003 EMS Strategic Plan. A Regional Purchasing
Committee was formed to facilitate planning and designing of the countywide program. Buying in
bulk improves buying power and by participating in the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement, the City
of Kent will get the best price available for medical supplies.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council authorization
for the Mavor to sign the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with King County. The motion
was seconded by Leona Orr and carried 3-0.
Laptop Purchase
Police Lieutenant Steve Ohlde addressed the request to purchase laptop computers by Councilmanic
bonds utilizing a bid contract with Datec, Inc. established by the City of Tacoma. The Pierce County
Sheriff s Office and the City of Puyallup are also using the same contract. Datec has agreed to
provide Kent with the same terms, pricing, and warranty. The laptop computers will be used as
Mobile Data Terminals that will replace the Police Department's aging terminals. The total costs for
purchasing 20 units, including sales tax, is 391,936.63.
Leona Orr moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval to utilize
the same bid contract between Datec and the City of Tacoma for purchase of 20 laptop
computers by the Kent Police Department to be used as Mobile Data Terminals for a total cost
of$91,936.63. Sandy Amodt seconded the motion which carried 3-0.
Committee Member Tim Clark arrived and took his place at the Committee table.
Operations Committee Minutes, 6/15/99 2
Proposed New Permit Staff
Director of Operations Brent McFall said the City has been engaged for several months in an effort to
review the permit process and to find ways to expedite that process so there would be a more timely
turnaround for customers receiving permits for various building and development activities in the
City of Kent. The consultant's study recommended reviewing staffing with respect to the current
workload. It was the sense of the consultant that the City was understaffed and the volume of activity
too high for existing staff to reasonably execute a turnaround in a timely manner. A task force,
headed by Planning Department Director Jim Harris, worked to create new timeline projections that
would be much more satisfactory. The proposal is for four additional staff in all of the departments
that work with permits.
Jim Hams noted two minor corrections on the first page of the memo included in the packets. In the
right hand column titled 2000 Salary, the third line down stating $49,534 should read S40,534. That
changes the total of that column to S771,316. Under Fire, Class AT 16E should read AF 16A. Mr.
Harris said that after looking at the current workload and trying to find ways to shorten timelines, the
task force sees the need for 13 new positions. It currently takes 70 days after a set of plans has been
dropped off in the Planning Department just to start looking at those plans. It then takes more days to
review the plans. At this time, plans are being shipped to an outsourcer in San Diego who does the
reviewing. Each department was asked to carefully evaluate what kind of staff was currently needed,
and if the proposal is authorized, hiring would start immediately with 1999 costs figured in. The
money for the new positions would be covered in the permit fees.
Mr. Harris said it was important to look at the Mission Statement. If it can be implemented, the City
would have an updated, modern, efficient permit system that would be predictable, fair, one
customers would feel comfortable with, and one that would uphold the integrity of the health, safety,
and general welfare of the City. Shortened timelines would allow permits to be issued across the
counter and single family dwelling permits, which usually take a long time to issue, would be
shortened significantly. The permit system is a multi-faceted program with lots of different
departments and divisions involved. Staff can't be added in just one area or it would put the system
out of kilter.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of
additional staff positions for implementation of permit process improvements as proposed in
the memorandum from Jim Harris included in the agenda packet, and to amend the 1999
Budget in the amount of$397,079 to include these positions which will be paid from permit fee
revenue. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0.
Technical Staff additions
Brent McFall said the City has been engaged for the last 18 months in a very aggressive information
technology upgrade. As this has progressed, staffing needs have grown to meet the demands of the
technology and staff of the different departments. Information Systems Director Marty Mulholland
said that the Information Systems Department is the foundation layer for the other departments'
success, and that requires operation positions as well as project positions to help keep the wheels
rolling. Three primary factors support adding the new positions: 1.) The Department is behind
schedule in accomplishing the business objectives of the Technology Plan, and 2.) There has been
continued extended overtime in the Network division, and 3.) The PC count has exceeded 500 and
there's funding approved to purchase additional PCs for the Police and Fire departments. There are
funding sources available and the proposal is to use the unallocated business systems budget plus a
portion of the database licensing budget for the new positions.
Operations Committee Minutes, 6/15/99 3
Technology Plan funded positions include Senior Systems Analyst for Police, Web Project
Coordinator, and Payroll Project Analyst. The total costs for 1999 and the year 2000 are
S302,708.32. Operating Fund positions include Systems Group Manager, Senior Network
Technician, PC Group Supervisor, and increased help at the Help Desk. The total 2-year costs for the
operating positions are S329,853.87.
A suite is available on the 4`h floor of the Centennial Center for additional office space and the plan is
to relocate Client Services which includes the Help Desk, Training, and PC Technical Support. Costs
for relocation and renovation of the space are estimated to be approximately S90,000, and rental fees
for the space are $7,500 per year.
Sandv Amodt moved to recommend revising the 1999 Operating budget and Technology Plan
budgets to include technical staff positions and rental fees included in the June 29, 1999
memorandum to Brent McFall and to revise the Capital Facilities budget by $90,000 for
furniture for Information Services staff. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and carried
3-0.
LID Bond Sales
Finance Director May Miller said this is a combined LID taking two projects and combining them
into one for administrative and debt issuance purposes. The first, LID 340, is for street construction
on the 1961h Street corridor and is the largest. The second, LID 349, is for sewers on 223rd Street NE.
Originally the amount was over$21,000,000 but because of prepayment the amount has been reduced
to S13,221,661. Staff is working with Dain Rauscher, the City's LID bond underwriters.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the
ordinance for CLID bond sales of$13,221,661 and to authorize the Mayor to-sign the purchase
contract with Dain Rauscher, the LID underwriter. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt
and carried 3-0.
TCI Franchise Agreements)—Update
Network Manager Joe Lorenz said the project was so big it had been divided in half and Multi Media
Manager Dea Drake was given the responsibility for the Subscriber Build Out as it relates to Cable
TV. Network staff have been working with TCI on the City's initial seven franchise agreements
build out and also on the additional sites that were added to the franchise agreement. The City's
internal I-Net portion, the seven original sites, was completed approximately a week early. The fiber
has been tested and staff is waiting for test results verification.
Dea Drake said there were two other issues related to the amendment of the franchise agreement.
One was a fiber build out to all the neighborhoods which, according to Dave Crook, TCI Regional
Manager, was completed and the last nodes activated at 3:00AM, June 30, 1999. All the homes have
been activated and have received the expanded lineup. This meets the 54 Channel requirement in the
franchise agreement and the fiber optic build-out criteria. The only item left in that addendum was
the Public Access Studio which, by Council amendment, TCI was given till September 1, 1999 to
pursue a possible partnership with a university or college. Along with this change-over, Kent's
Government Channel 28 will become Channel 21 at the end of July. Advertising and public relations
work is being done with the citizens before that happens.
There have been several citizen complaints forwarded to TCI and 3-H Cable Communications
Consultants having to do with failure to notify residents when they are coming into the area. They
Operations Committee Minutes, 6/15/99 4
were supposed to door-hang houses and give citizens the channel line-up. That does not appear to
have happened. They were also supposed to mail out Channel Line-Up cards a couple of additional
times and that has not happened. TCI was not aware of this and they are researching the issue. Also,
there were a few complaints about messes left by TCI subcontractors and long periods of outages.
Citizens who called TCI during that time period were given credit for outages. A phone number to
call if citizens would like a Channel Line-Up card is 1-877-824-2288, TCI's customer service
number.
May Financial Report
Finance Director May Mill said the General Fund revenues are close to budget and expenditures are
2.3% under budget. Property Tax collections through May are 0.9% over budget. Sales Taxes were
under budget 3.8% in April but by June were only 1% under budget. Utility Taxes are over budget
which is related primarily to increases in telephone usage. Building Permits are 33.6% over budget
reflecting a strong economy for the year to date. Recreation Fees are 9% over budget. Fines and
Forfeitures continue to exceed projections at 23.9% over budget. Based on May's results and the
trend for other revenues, the General Fund should end the year with $2,056,086 more in the ending
fund balance than was budgeted. The preliminary forecast indicates $572,921 less than needed to
maintain the 10% contingency fund, however that is only about 1% of expenditures and it is expected
that further improvements in revenues and/or cost controls will cover that amount.
The Lodging Tax, which became effective on February 1, 1999, is starting to show receipts coming
in. There is a two month lag in the actual receipt date, but it appears that the budgeted revenue will
be met. Golf operating revenues are 17.1% under budget for the year to date. This is a slight
improvement over the 18.9% that was under budget in April. The remainder of the.year would need
to average 9.2% over budget each month to make up the revenues under budget thus far. Overall, the
City is enjoying the benefits of an exceptionally strong economy and is well positioned to begin next
year with adequate revenues to continue existing services.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:38PM.
Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
June 21, 1999
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Leona Orr(filling in for Tim Clark), Tom Brotherton,
Rico Yingling
STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Jim Harris, Ed White, Katherin Johnson, Joe Mitchell, Tom
Brubaker, Trevin Raak, Judy Bennett, Gary Gill, John Hillman, Paul Scott, Pat Fitzpatrick, Jackie
Bicknell
The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 4:OOPM. There was one added item:
Amendment to Sewer Comp Plan. Item number 4, Granting of Easement for World Comm was
deleted from the agenda.
Human Services Roundtable Membership Termination
Katherin Johnson, Housing/Human Services Office Manager, presented a resolution to terminate
membership in the Human Services Roundtable. The City of Seattle, King County, and United Way
each hold two seats on the Roundtable giving them each two votes. Other member cities have one
vote each. The Roundtable membership consists of elected officials representing their jurisdictions.
Dues, calculated on population, are collected from Roundtable members. Kent's current fee is
510,060. Staff has raised concerns that Seattle and King County dominate the Roundtable and that
the suburban cities are not receiving their money's worth or having their interests addressed. Other
jurisdictions have indicated they may resign from the Roundtable due to the focus on Seattle.
r At the 1999 Permanent Roundtable Staff Retreat, three areas were identified that would meet the
needs of membership. There was consensus on legislative advocacy and strategies to improve cost-
effective systems. There was not consensus on using a sub-regional approach to defining areas of
need and then developing the work program around those areas. The staff representing the South
County jurisdictions felt a sub-regional approach was critical to the Roundtable's future.
Ms Johnson addressed several Pros and Cons for membership in the Roundtable. Pros were
legislative advocacy for human services in Olympia, forums to discuss human services and to
develop strategies to improve cost-effective systems, and opportunities to become aware of changes
in the County's delivery of human services to the region. Cons were the King County/Seattle focus,
lack of focus on sub-regional issues, withdrawal of other major South County jurisdictions, Seattle's
attempts to dictate the work plan, lack of understanding of how jurisdictions operate, and few
significant accomplishments in the last three years.
Planning Director Jim Harris said Kent would like to see a South King County group formed. There
is already a group called South King County Human Service Planners and the City would be involved
in that group.
Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee
recommend approval of the Human Services Roundtable Termination of Membership
Resolution and to forward this recommendation to the full City Council at its July 6, 1999
meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution. The motion was seconded by
Committee Member Rico Yingling and passed 3-0.
Public Works/Planning Committee, 6/21/99 2
Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
Joe Mitchell, Neighborhood Traffic Control Program Coordinator, said the City's current
Neighborhood Traffic Control Program contains two elements, volume control of the traffic flow on
roadways, and traffic speed controls. The state mandated Growth Management Act requires the City
to have a Comprehensive Plan to address land use, transportation, and capital facilities. In the
transportation element it requires adequate street capacity and that a specific set of standards be
developed. Five policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan provide the framework for the
Neighborhood Traffic Control Program: Policy TR-4.1, Policy TR-4.2, Policy TR-4.3, Policy TR-
4.4, and Policy TR-4.8.
The GyIA requires local jurisdictions to include action plans for bringing existing transportation
facilities into compliance with established Level-of-Service (LOS) standards and to provide for the
expansion of transportation facilities to meet future needs. In areas where the Land Use Plan directs
high levels of growth the LOS standard has to be higher. The Volume Control Program Criteria
include design capacity and speed along with the number of lanes, road width, and parking. There
are two volume control phase options that address traffic control devices and physical street
alterations. Street or roadway classifications include Residential Streets, Residential Collectors, and
Residential Collector Arterials. Phase 1 options look for a 60% LOS by using one-way streets, street
signs, and police enforcement. If the problem is not rectified, Phase 2 options are initiated which
include vertical curbs and gutters, forced-turn channelization, entry/exit chokers, diagonal diverters,
and median barriers.
The Speed Control Program Criteria uses the same street and roadway classifications as the Volume
Control Program. Criteria is 85% of vehicles going 5MPH over the limit with a threshold speed of
the top 15% of vehicles exceeding the 5MPH over the limit speed. Speed Control Phase 1 Options
include radar, parking variants, neighborhood speed watches, pavement markings, rumble strips, and
police enforcement. Speed Control Phase 2 Options incorporate physical barriers such as entry/exit
chokers, narrow roadways, traffic circles, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and chicanes.
The proposed neighborhood traffic control policy includes extensive citizen involvement with
customer satisfaction surveys to assess neighborhood perceptions, problem identification based on
traffic engineering field studies, volume control threshold criteria consistent with comprehensive
transportation planning policy, speed control threshold criteria consistent with local police
enforcement practices, and ongoing periodic evaluation.
Tom Brotherton moved that the Public Works/Planning Committee recommend authorization
to adopt an ordinance to establish the Neighborhood Traffic Control Program. The motion
was seconded by Rico Yingling and carried 3-0.
272"d Corridor Interim Financina
Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said interim funding is necessary to pay for work currently
under contract on the 196`h Street Project because the formation of LID 351 was deferred to next
year. When the LID is formed, the money would be reimbursed. Going ahead on the project speeds
up the process by a year. No street fund monies were allocated for the project in the 1999 budget, as
it was anticipated the LID funds would be available. To address a project cost increase and to
minimize the cash flow requirements, a mid-year budget change is necessary. The proposal is to
transfer monies from the street fund in 1999 to the project fund. The net total increase of street fund
monies would be S2,717,750. Increased costs are attributed to added on and off ramps at 108`h
Avenue, bond issuance/Guarantee Fund costs and Grant fund reduction. The amount of interim
Public Works/Planning Committee, 6/21/99 3
financing requested to address the cash flow is approximately $5,200,000. This funds prior carry-
over work and work moved ahead of schedule.
Rico Yingling moved to recommend to the full Council the approval and the adoption of the
budget changes and respective transfers along with the concurrence and the establishment of
the interim financing thereto as reflected in the above memo. Tom Brotherton seconded the
motion which carried 3-0.
:amendment to Sewer Comp Plan
Don`Vickstrom said King County asked for an amendment to the Sewer Comp Plan. He handed out
a map of the Proposed Expansion South showing a stub to the sewer that the County had requested.
Thera would'oe no negative impacts from the amendment.
Tom Brotherton moved to amend the Sewer Comprehensive Plan for the proposed South
Expansion per the Director of Public Works' recommendation. Rico Yingling seconded the
motion which carried 3-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:21PM.
_ Jackie Bicknell
City Council Secretary
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
r-