Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/16/1999 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF �n�ldBG�l� Mayor Jim White Counci/members Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly Tom Brotherton Judy Woods Tim Clark Rico Yingling November 16, 1999 Office of the City Clerk CITY Of.4\gB 1S SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 16, 1999 Council Chambers Mayor Jim White 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Introduction to Appointees B, Representative Chris Hurst C, Proclamation - American Education Week D. 1999 Employee Donation to Kent Food Bank If. PW 61'�Je WeeK 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Year 2000 Budget and Tax Levy 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Interagency Agreement/Traffic Signal - Authorize D. King County Agreement for Inflow/Infiltration Program Study - Authorize 3 E. Condemnation on 256th Street - Ordinance F . Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grant - Accept and Establish Budget G. Change in Control of Tri-Star Disposal - Resolution )r'S 7 H. Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zoning - Ordinance 3y83 I . Stonebrook Suites Bill of Sale - Accept J. Arts Commission Reappointment - Confirm K. Diversity Board Appointment - Confirm L. Kent Drinking Driver Task Force Grant Funding - Accept and Budget M. 277th Corridor LID 351 - Notice of Intent to Form and Set Hearing Date - Resolution 15% 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Nelson Annexation, 10% Petition B. Continuation of School Impact Fees - Ordinance 3 C. Year 2000 Legislative Agenda D. No Parking Zone - Ordinance 3q-b�2 E. Water Rate Adjustment - Ordinance 3A'`p (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 7 . OTHER BUSINESS (Continued) 8 � F. Sewer Rate Adjustment - Ordinance 3� G. Drainage Rate Adjustment - Ordinance 3y1% H. Repeal of Street Utility Tax Sunset Provisions - Ordinance ?)4 0 I . Public Works Improvement Plan Review and Inspection Fees - Ordinance -6490 J. Fire, Building Code and Fireworks Fee Schedule - Ordinance and Resolution 3LHI 4 1551 Billboard Regulation Amendment/Off-Premises Signs Amendment 8 . BIDS Y►!c Cato-P- PAV-pa A. Garrison Creek Park Reservoir ID Improvements r `, �>J- � 1 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF � A 1 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Potential Litigation B. 1Re_al Property Sale C . ,or /Ve nS 13 . ADJOURNMENT U 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) Introduction of Appointees B) Representative Chris Hurst C) Proclamation - American Education Week D) 1999 Employee Donation to Kent Food Bank Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is the third public hearing on the 2000 Budget and the first on the Property Tax Levy. Public input is desired and welcome before adoption of the annual Budget . The 2000 Preliminary Budget is in balance and totals approximately $120, 945, 678 . The Preliminary Budget document is available in the Finance and City Clerk' s offices . Adoption is scheduled for the December 14, 1999 Council meeting. 3 . EXHIBITS: Preliminary Budget document is available in the City Clerk' s office 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: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through M be approved. Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 2 , 1999 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through October 29 and paid on October 29, 1999, after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 2 , 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/29/99 225135-225457 $1, 700, 861 . 12 10/29/99 225458-225978 2 , 974 , 694 . 88 $4 , 675, 556 . 00 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 15 and paid on October 20, 1999 : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/20/99 Checks 239276-239597 $ 271, 187 . 17 10/20/99 Advices 85950-86549 876 , 333 . 97 $1, 147, 521 . 14 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington November 2 , 1999 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order to 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, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director Miller and Parks Director Hodgson. Approximately 35 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Introduction of Appointees. Mayor White intro- COMMUNICATIONS duced Judie Sarff, his reappointment to the Human Services Commission, and added that Dini Duclos, an appointee to the same Commission, is not in attendance . Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Dwight Rodarme of Parks Maintenance has been selected as Employee of the Month for November. He noted that Rodarme oversaw all aspects of maintaining the five-field Russell Road complex, and has received many compliments from users and tournament directors about the condition of the complex. Parks Director Hodgson commended Rodarme for his commitment to excellence, and the Mayor presented him with the Employee of the Month plaque . Human Services Month. Mayor White read a proclamation noting that homelessness is an increasing problem affecting not only the very poor, but also working and middle class Americans . He declared November, 1999, as Human Services Month in the City of Kent and encouraged all citizens to recognize and support its observance. Judie Sarff of the Human Services Commission accepted the proclamation and thanked the Mayor, Council and citizens for their efforts . Community and Regional Planning Day, Mayor White noted that November 8 , 1999, is the 50th Anniversary of World Town Planning Day, which presents an opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of the Kent and Use and Planning Board and other citizen planners, past and present, who have contributed 1 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 PUBLIC their time and expertise to the improvement of the COMMUNICATIONS City of Kent . He proclaimed November 8 , 1999, as Community and Regional Planning day and presented the proclamation to Ron Harmon, Chair of the Land Use and Planning Board. Harmon explained when the Land Use and Planning Board meets and encouraged citizens to attend. City Customer Service Survey Results. Government Affairs Manager Dena Laurent presented the results of the first external customer survey, which was conducted as part of the new performance measure project . The survey contained questions on the quality of life, public information, contact with City employees, permit services, public safety, recreational activities, streets and traffic, and water services . CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through N ^ CALENDAR be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Later in the meeting, ORR MOVED to correct a typographical error in Item 6E regarding the Community Access Studio to read " . . . facility to be fully operational no later than January 1, 2001 . " Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 19, 1999 . ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) Nelson Annexation AN-99-1. SET November 16, 1999, for a public meeting to accept the 10 percent petition for the annexation of 23 acres located between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad lines and north of S . 277th Street . ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) ZONING Horseshoe Acres Annexation Zonina AZ-99-1. On August 23 , 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on both the annexation zoning map amendments and the comprehensive plan amendments for the Horseshoe Acres annexation 2 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 ANNEXATION area. Tonight ' s meeting is the second of two ZONING public hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant to state law; the first hearing was held on September 21, 1999 . Matt Jackson of the Planning Department showed the area on the map and noted that the Planning Board recommends a compre- hensive plan land use designation of industrial for the site, and a zoning of M-1 for the entire properties . He noted that Planning staff concurs . Mayor White opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and ORR MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the motion carried. CLARK MOVED to approve the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation on initial zoning and potential Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Horseshoe Acres annexation area (AZ-99-1 and CPA-99-1) , and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances . Brotherton seconded and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) PLAN AMENDMENT School District Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-99-2 And Impact Fee Schedule. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3482 amending the Kent Comprehensive Plan - Capital Facilities Plan element to include the Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts, and amending Section 12 . 13 . 160 of the Kent City Code to amend the school impact fee schedule . PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6N) Mack Park Final Plat FSU-95-2 . APPROVAL with conditions of the Mack Park Final Plat and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. The final plat application was submitted by W. Shupe Holmberg for the Mack Park Final Plat . The City Council approved the preliminary plat with conditions on April 2 , 1996 . 3 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 COMMUNITY ACESS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) STUDIO Community Access Studio Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an agreement allowing an extension of AT&T' s (formerly TCI) public access studio franchise obligations until January 1 , 2001 on the condition that , in good faith, AT&T work with participating south county cities and a selected educational institution to create a combined community access and educational studio facility to be fully operational no later than January 1, 2001 . APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) Human Services Commission Appointment And Reappointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s re- appointment of Ms . Judie Sarff to continue serving as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. Her new term will be in effect until 1/1/2003 . Confirmation of the Mayor ' s appointment of Ms . Dini Duclos to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. Ms . Duclos will replace Steve Anderson, who resigned, and she will serve as the non-voting agency representative on the Commission. Ms . Duclos is the Chief Executive Officer of the South King County Multi-Service Center. She also serves as Chair of the Federal Way Parks and Recreation Commission, is a Past President of Rotary, is President of her Homeowners Association and is President Elect of South King Council of Human Services . Her term will be in effect until 1/l/2002 . PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) RECREATION Kent Arts Commission 2000 City Art Plan And Five- Year City Art Plan. ACCEPT and BUDGET the 2000 City Art Plan and Five-year City Art Plan, as recommended by the Arts Commission. The Kent Arts Commission has developed and approved a City Art Plan for the year 2000 and a Five-year Art Plan for the years 2000 through 2004 . The City Art Program and fund was established in accordance with Ordinance No. 2552 . a Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) RECREATION DSHS Family Support Expansion Grant. ACCEPT the $3 , 100 grant from the DSHS Family Support Expansion Program and budget it to fund the Stewpot Theater, as recommended by the Parks Committee . The Specialized Recreation Division of the Parks and Recreation Department applied for and received a $3 , 100 grant from the Department of Social and Health Services Family Support Expansion Grant/ Discovery Trust Program to assist in funding the Stewpot theater. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Green View Park Neighborhood Donation. ACCEPT the $400 donation from the Green View Park neighbors and budget it to purchase a play dinosaur for their neighborhood park, as recommended by the Parks Committee. The Green View Park neighbors rallied to raise $400 toward the purchase of a $600 dinosaur to replace the one vandalized in their neighborhood park. Some adults in the neighborhood believed, the dinosaur was vandalized by kids within their own neighborhood, so they took it upon themselves to help with the cost of replacement . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) Make A Difference Day Donations. ACCEPT the $400 in cash donations from Golden "K" Kiwanis Club, Kiwanis Club of Kent, Soroptomist International, and the Kent Police Benevolent Association and budget it to fund the 1999 Make A Difference Day event, as recommended by the Parks Committee . Each year the local service clubs donate $100 to purchase supplies and materials to support Make a Difference Day. This year the program has also received commitment from the following businesses for bulb donations : East Hill Nursery, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart, and McLendon' s Hardware . 5 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) RECREATION Eagle Scout Project Recognition Program ACCEPT the $870 from Paul Morford and an anonymous donor and budget it to fund recognition plaques and supplies for the Eagle Scout Program, as recom- mended by the Parks Committee . An Eagle Scout Recognition Program was established with a $770 contribution from Paul Morford to fund ten Eagle Scout recognition plaques . An addi- tional $100 was contributed to support supplies/ materials for Eagle Scout development projects for a total of $870 . (BIDS - ITEM 8A) Commons/Public Works Shops Stand-By Generator Installation. The bid opening for the Commons/ Public Works Stand-By Generator Installation Project was held on October 29, 1999 . The Engineer' s Estimate is $75 , 000 . 00 . The Parks and Recreation Director noted that one bid was received in the amount of $114 , 000 . 00 . He recommended rejecting the bid and noted for Brotherton that the terms may be changed. WOODS MOVED to reject the bid for the Commons/Public Works Stand-By Generator Installation. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) Consolidated Food Management Contract Extension. AUTHORIZE a contract extension with Consolidated Food Management, Inc . for the year 2000 , as recommended by the Operations Committee . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6L) Equitable Sharing Of Federally Forfeited Property. APPROVAL for the Police Department to establish a project for receiving and expending the funds received from the Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property program in the amount of $3 , 102 . 84 , as recommended by the Public Safety ' Committee . 5 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through October 15 and paid on October 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 19, 1999 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/15/99 224508-224714 $1, 655 , 175 . 27 10/15/99 224715-225134 2 , 918 , 159 . 47 $4 , 573 , 334 . 74 REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers to respond to the Council Secretary regarding the upcoming Suburban Cities dinner. Operations Committee. Woods noted that the Committee will meet at 3 : 30 on November 16, and at 3 : 30 on December 7, which is a date change, and that both meetings will deal with the 2000 budget . Public safety Committee. Epperly said the next meeting will be held on November 9 at 5 : 00 p.m. Public Works/Planning Committee. Clark noted that the Committee will meet on the third Monday of November, and MOVED to hold the sole December meeting and public hearing on the possibility of forming an LID on the 277th Corridor at 7 : 00 p.m. on Monday, December 13 , 1999 . Woods seconded and the motion carried. Parks Committee. Woods noted that the Committee will meet on November 16 , at 4 :30 p.m. EXECUTIVE At 7 : 25 p.m. , McFall reminded the Council of an SESSION Executive Session of approximately 20 minutes regarding property acquisition and potential litigation. 7 Kent City Council Minutes November 2 , 1999 (Parks & The meeting reconvened at 7 : 59 p .m. WOODS MOVED Recreation) to authorize the Mayor to execute an Addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Columbia Greenhouse property with terms and conditions substantially similar to those set forth in the letter from the City Attorney to Seller' s attorney, dated November 2 , 1999, which is hereby made part of this record, and to further authorize the Mayor to execute any and all documents necessary to close the transaction subject to approval of the documents by the City Attorney. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 00 p .m. Brenda Jacobe CMC City Clerk 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT/TRAFFIC SIGNAL - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the Interagency Agreement/Traffic Signal at the intersection of 120th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 240th Street, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney. 3 . EXHIBITS: Interagency Agreement and Public Works Director memorandum 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. 6C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 1, 1999 TO: Public Worlcs/Plan:WnCommittee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Interagency Agreement/Traffic Signal 120`' Avenue SE & SE 240`h Street - Authorization The purpose of the attached Interagency Agreement between the City and IQng County Department of Transportation is to define the respective agencies' level of responsibility with regard to the operation/maintenance of the traffic signal at 120"' Ave SE & SE 240`' Street. MOTION: Recommend Council authorization for the Mayor to sign the Interagency Agreement for the traffic signal at 120"' Ave SE & SE 240`h Street, upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney. MP7899 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF 1201h AVENUE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST 2401h STREET THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("the County") and the City of Kent ("the City"). RECITALS A. The County owns the traffic signal located at the intersection of 120`h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 240'h Street in unincoporated King County bordering the City ("the Signal"). B. The City has requested that the County allow the City to control the timing setting of the Signal in order to coordinate the Signal with other traffic signals located within the City. C. Efficient coordination of the traffic signals in and around the City will provide benefits in the public's interest. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows: 1. Maintenance King County Department of Transportation Road Services Division (RSD) will maintain the Signal. The City will provide technical support for the IDC controller at RSD's request. Whenever the City needs to get into a cabinet, a Signal Technician or Engineer will contact RSD for approval. 2. Traffic Signal Operation 2.1 RSD will control the Signal display, the vehicle detection system, establish a range of parameters for traffic controller timing settings such as minimum green, maximum green, gap times, vehicle clearance times, pedestrian walk, etc. The City and RSD will meet annually to review the operation of the Signal. All aspects of the operation will be reviewed including efficiency and safety. 2.2 The City will control the Signal controller timing settings within RSD's traffic operational parameters and establish the traffic signal coordination system using: a. A family of pre-set coordination patterns (developed jointly by RSD/City) operated by a time-of-day, day-of-week schedule; or b. A real-time on line dynamic traffic control strategy based on current traffic flow characteristics as measured by the system; or C. A-combination of a. and b, above. 2.3 The City will provide a system password to RSD that will allow for monitoring only. If requested, City technicians will assist RSD personnel in familiarizing themselves with system capabilities. The City will fax notification of any signal timing changes it makes to RSD as soon as is practical after they are in effect. 4. Audits and Inspections The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by the County or the City during the term of this Agreement and three years after termination. 5. Entire Agreement and Amendments This Agreement contains the entire written agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior oral or written representations or understandings. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the authorized representatives of both parties. 6. Indemnification Washington State law shall govern the respective liabilities of the parties to this Agreement for any loss due to property damage or personal injury arising out of activities conducted pursuant to it. 7. Duration/Termination This Agreement will become effective upon signature by both parties and will remain in effect until terminated by 30 days' advance written notice by either party to the other parry. IN WITNESS, THEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date last written below. KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT Director, King County City Mayor Department of Transportation Date Date Approved as to form: Approved as to form: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City Attorney 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KING COUNTY AGREEMENT FOR INFLOW/INFILTRATION PROGRAM STUDY - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign the King County Agreement for Inflow/Infiltration Program Study which provides the County contractors entry into the City' s sewer lines to collect information and analyze conditions . 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 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. 6D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 1, 1999 TO: Public Worlcs/Pla ing Committee FROM: Don Wicicstrom RE: Utilities Cooperation Agreement Inflow/Infiltration Program Study - Authorization Attached is a copy of the Utilities Cooperation Agreement between the City of Kent and King County for the Inflow/Infiltration Program Study. This agreement provides authorization of King County contractors to access the City's sewer lines to collect information on Inflow/Infiltration and to analyze the condition of the lines and structures. As pan of this agreement, King County is responsible for funding the program. The term of this agreement is from the execution date until the completion of the study or December 31, 2005, whichever occurs first. MOTION: Recommend Council authorization for the Mavor to sign the Utilities Cooperation Agreement with King County for the Inflow/Infiltration Program Study. MP7999 UTILITIES COOPERATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF KENT AND KING COUNTY FOR INFLOW/INFILTRATION PROGRAM STUDY This Agreement, is made and entered into this day of 1999 between the City of Kent, a municipality, in the State of Washington, (hereinafter, "the City") and King County, a home rule charter county in the State of Washington, acting through its Department of Natural Resources (herein after "the County", or "DNR"). RECITALS A. The parties have entered into a long-term Agreement for Sewage Disposal May 18, 1967, and amended thereafter (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Agreement"); and B. King County has determined that substantial amounts of extraneous water (hereinafter "infiltration & inflow" or "I&I") enter local sewer systems which are tributary to King County's wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities; and C. King County believes cost savings can be realized by reducing infiltration & inflow in some of the local sewer systems tributary to the County's system and is willing to fund a study to gather information on these sewer systems; and D. The City has determined that it is in its best interest to participate in this study to identify these areas of I&I into the local sewer system; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: Section 1. Purpose and Duration 1.1 The purposes of this agreement are (a) to provide for the entry of County contractors into the City's sewer lines to collect information on I&I and to analyze the conditions of these lines, and (b) to use reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, to obtain consent to enter private property, if such access is deemed necessary by the County, for the purpose of collecting information and analyzing the conditions leading to Inflow/Infiltration into privately owned sewer lines. 1.2 The information referenced in subsection 1.1 above will be collected using various methods, including, at a minimum, flow monitoring, smoke testing, dye testing and television inspection of manholes and sewer lines. Page 1 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study 1.3 The duration of this agreement shall be from the date of execution until completion of the study or December 31, 2005, whichever should come first. The duration of this agreement shall not be exceeded without the written agreement of both parties. Section 2. County Responsibility 2.1 The County, as the party funding this I&I study, shall be responsible for its contractor's performance in the local system and on private property, including compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The County shall also ensure that specific responsibilities between the County's contractor and the City will be defined before initiation of any work within the City's sewer service area. 2.2 The County agrees to provide a copy of its contract with its contractor to the City prior to the initiation of any activities under this Agreement. The County will require in its contract with its contractor that the County and the participating City will be added as an additional insured to the contractors' general liability policy(s). 2.3 The City agrees, understands and acknowledges that the County is fully self- insured for its liability exposures. Should an incident occur involving the negligence of County employees acting in the scope of their employment, the County's self- funded program will respond. Section 3. City Responsibility 3.1 The City shall make available to the County and its contractors, in a timely manner, the best available information about the conditions of its manholes and the other parts of its sewer system. 3.2 The City shall use reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, to obtain consent to enter private property to ensure that the work required under this Agreement can be accomplished efficiently. 3.3 The City shall use reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, to notify owners of private property when access to such property is necessary to carry out the purpose of the Agreement. 3.4 The City shall use reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, to contact the owners of side sewers to provide reasonable public information related to the studies or other activities performed under this Agreement. 3.5 The City shall use reasonable efforts, as determined by the City, to obtain consent to enter any sewer service area to which the City provides sewer collection services by contract or other agreement. Page 2 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study 3.6 The City agrees that the service map attached hereto as Exhibit A is reasonably ^ accurate as of the date indicated on the map. The service map defines the area for the UI regional study. Section 4. Indemnification 4.1 To the extent allowed by law, the County shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, expenses of litigation, attorney's fees, penalties, and damages of whatsoever kind or nature arising out of, in connection with or incident to an act or omission of the County, its employees, agents, and contractors in the performance of the County's obligations under this Agreement. In the event of litigation between the parties to enforce the rights under this section, reasonable attorney's fees shall be allowed to the prevailing parry. This i 71auns, ion provision shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against th Districan employee or former employee of the County or its contractors and, as the County expressly waives all immunity and limitation of liability under title 51 RCW. 4.2 To the extent allowed by law, the City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its elected officials, employees and agents from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, expenses of litigation, attorney's fees, penalties, and damages or whatsoever kind or nature arising out of, in connection with or incident to an act or omission of the City, its employees, agents, and contractors in the performance of the City's obligations under this Agreement. In the event of litigation between the parties to enforce the rights under this section, reasonable attorney's fees shall be allowed to the prevailing party. This indemnification obligation shall include, but is not limited to, all claims against the County by an employee or former employee of the City or its contractors and, as to such claims, the City expressly waives all immunity and limitation of liability under Title 51 RCW. Section 5. Basic Agreement Unchanged The City shall comply with all provisions of the Basic Agreement without qualification or condition by reason of any provision or interpretation of this Agreement, it being the intention of the parties that the Basic Agreement shall not otherwise be affected or modified hereby. Page 3 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study Section 6. Termination 6.1 Termination for Convenience. Either party for its convenience may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part with seven (7) business days advance written notice delivered to the other party by certified mail, return receipt requested. 6.2 Termination for Default. In addition to termination for convenience, if either party fails to perform or comply with any material provision of this agreement, the other party may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, for default. Termination shall be effected by serving a Notice of Termination by certified mail, return receipt requested, on the other party setting forth the manner in which the other party is in default and the effective date of termination; provided, that the other party shall have ten calendar working days to cure the default. 6.3 Termination for Non-Appropriation. If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way prior to the termination date set forth in this contract or in any amendment hereto, either party may, upon written notice to the other party, terminate the Agreement in whole or in part. Such termination shall be in addition to the parties' right to terminate for convenience or default. Funding for this agreement beyond the current appropriation year is conditional upon appropriation by the County Council of sufficient funds to support the activities described in this agreement. Should such an appropriation not be approved, the agreement shall terminate at the close of the current appropriation year. The appropriation year ends on December 31 of each year. Section 7. Notice 7.1 All Notices to the County required under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, addressed as follows: King County Department of Natural Resources Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street; MS: KSC —NR - 0501 Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 Attn: Gunars Sreibers, Program Manager Telephone: (206) 684-2113 Fax: (206) 684-1741 Page 4 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study 7.2 All notices to the City required to be given under the terms of this Agreement unless otherwise specified herein, or as may be amended, shall be given in writing, addressed as follows: Mr. Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Director of Public Works The City of Kent 220 4" Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Telephone: (253) 856-5500 Fax: (253) 856-6600 Section 8. Project Dispute Resolution 8.1 The parties' Project Managers shall use their best efforts to resolve disputes related to or arising out of the studies or other activities conducted under this Agreement. In the event that disputes cannot be resolved by the parties' Project Managers, the County's Wastewater Treatment Division Manager and the City's Public Works Director will apply their best efforts to resolve disputes on matters between the County and the City arising out of or related to the Agreement. If the Manager and Director are unable to resolve a matter within fifteen (15) days of the time such a matter is referred to them in writing, the Manager and Director shall ask the City's Public Works Director and the County's DNR Director to resolve the dispute, subject to statutory, permit, or other requirements, policies or procedures. 8.2 The County and the City agree to exhaust each of these procedural steps before seeking to resolve disputes in a court of law or other tribunal, except to the extent that these procedures conflict with formal administrative appeal procedures. Section 9. Choice of Law This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in the Superior Court of King County. Section 10. Amendment, Waiver This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing, executed by both the County and the City. Page 5 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study Section 11. Captions Section titles and other headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be part of this Agreement, nor considered in its interpretation. Section 12. Binding Upon Successors This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the successors and assignees of both the County and the City. Section 13. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 14. Waiver No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed or construed as a waiver of any other term or condition, nor shall a waiver of any breach be deemed to constitute a waiver of any subsequent breach whether of the same or a _ different provision of this Agreement. Section 15. No Third-Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is entered into solely for the mutual benefit of the County and the City. This Agreement is not entered into with the intent that it shall benefit any other party and no other such person shall be entitled to be treated as a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement. Section 16. Effective Date This Agreement shall take effect when both parties hereto have executed this document. Section 17. Entire Agreement This document constitutes the complete agreement of the parties regarding the matters described herein and there are no other agreements, express or implied, not contained herein. The Agreement may be modified only in writing and signed by the parties. Page 6 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first written above. CITY OF KENT By Jim White Its Mayor Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Deputy City Attorney City Clerk KING COUNTY APPROVED AS TO FORM: William Blakney, WSBA #16734 Pam Bissonnette, Director Sr. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Department of Natural Resources Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: King County Department of Natural Resources Mr. Don E. Wickstrom, P.E. Wastewater Treatment Division Director of Public Works 201 South Jackson Street; MS: KSC—NR-0501 The City of Kent Seattle, Washington 98104-3855 220 4' Avenue South Attn: Gunars Sreibers, Program Manager Kent, Washington 98032 Telephone: (206) 684-2113 Telephone: (253) 856-5500 Fax: (206) 684-1741 Fax: (253) 856-5600 _ Page 7 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study Exhibit A City of Kent service area to be included in I&I study. Page 8 of 8 Utilities Cooperation Agreement for I&I Study ® Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CONDEMNATION ON S .E. 256TH STREET - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of Ordinance No. condemning necessary properties for the road construction project on Southeast 256th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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. 6E ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the acquisition of certain property and/or property rights in order to construct, extend, widen, improve, alter, maintain and reconstruct Southeast 256th Street from its intersection at I I6th Avenue Southeast to approximately 135`h Avenue Southeast, including intersection work; providing for the condemnation, appropriation, taking and damaging of such property rights as are necessary for that purpose; providing for the payment thereof out of the 256`h Street Project Fund(Fund R-77-E23- 5510); and directing the City Attorney to prosecute the appropriate legal proceedings, together with the authority to enter into settlements, stipulations or other agreements; all of said properties located within King County, Washington. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ]. After receiving the report of City staff, and after reviewing the planned improvements for the Southeast 256th Street Project (the "Project"), the City Council finds and declares that the public convenience, use, health, safety and necessity demand that the City of Kent condemn, appropriate, take and damage all or portions o certain real properties located in King County, Washington, in order to acquire the necessary property and/or property rights for the construction of the Project, including all necessary appurtenances. These properties are legally described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Properties"). The purposes for which this condemnation is authorized shall include, without limitation, all acts necessary to complete 1 256"' Street Condemnation the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration, maintenance and reconstruction of the Project, including improvements for drainage, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, bicycle paths, landscaping, illumination, signal improvements, electrical facilities, utilities, utility adjustments and relocations, and any other street or municipal purposes that may become necessary from time to time on the Properties. SECTION 2. The City authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a portion of the Properties for the construction, extension, improvement, widening, alteration, maintenance and reconstruction of the Project, including acquisition of property and/or property rights, together with all necessary appurtenances and related work to make a complete improvement according to City standards. SECTION 3. The City shall condemn the Properties only after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law. SECTION 4. The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this ordinance through the City's "256th Street Project" fund (Fund R-77-E23-5510) or from any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be provided by law. SECTION S. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Properties. In commencing this condemnation procedure, the City Council authorizes the City Attorney to enter into settlements, stipulations, or agreements in order to minimize damages,which settlements, stipulations, or agreements may include, but not be limited to, the amount o just compensation to be paid, the size and dimensions of the property condemned, and the acquisition of temporary construction easements and other property interests. 2 25e Street Condemnation SECTION 6. Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed. SECTION 7. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. SECTION 8. This ordinance, being the exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after publication as approved by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 256`h Street Condemnation PASSED the day of , 1999. APPROVED the _ day of 1999. PUBLISHED the_ day of 1999. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\0i 1\0rdmenceewndc=256.102799.doc 4 25e Street Condemnation No. 369066 — z, Lot 27, Kent Highlands, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 78 of Plats, page 19, in King County, Washington. No. 369071 — '� tj g PARCEL A: _ The west 264 feet cf the south half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County,' Washington; EXCEPT the south 180 feet of the east 244 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT road. PARCEL B: The south 180 feet of the east 244 feet of the west 264 feet of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT S .E. 256th Street . No. 369074 — Q The east 264 .00 feet of the south half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter in Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT 124th Avenue Southeast; AND EXCEPT Southeast 256th Street. 'T 0 _ , No. 369077 '- 3 Beginning at a point 30 feet north and 15 feet west of the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter,of Section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; thence west along the north marginal line of the County Road, a distance of 208 . 7 feet; thence north 178 . 7 feet; thence east 208 . 7 feet; thence south 178 . 7 feet to the point of beginning. No. 370913 - 17 A The south 250 feet of the .west 360 feet of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 22, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 125 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT those portions thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes by Deeds recorded under Recording Numbers 2,677705, 4374834 and 8704160434 . No. 369082 - I a The east 140 feet of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the south 244 feet thereof; AND EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof as conveyed to King County for road; AND EXCEPT the east 30 feet thereof as conveyed to *King County for road; AND EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 87-2-19171-1. No. 369088 - 2 9 That portion of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows : Commencing at the northwest corner of said subdivision; thence north 83054137" east along the north line of said subdivision 885 . 01 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence south 1002119" east 234 feet; thence south 88054137" west 225 feet to the west line of the east half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 28; thence north along said west line a distance of 234 feet; thence east to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under King County Recording Number 2675544; AND EXCEPT the south 96 feet thereof. No. 369089 - 2 5 The north half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter cf the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the north 30.00 feet thereof conveyed to King County for Kent-Black Diamond-Middle Road by deed recorded under Recording Number 2675544 . No. 369090 - 2 G The north half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 .North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for Kent-Black Diamond Middle Road (Southeast 256th Street) by deed recorded under Recording Number 2675539; AND EXCEPT that portion thereof lying east of the west margin of 124th Avenue Southeast as established by deed recorded under Recording Number 5303693 . r IT_L- jj No. 369092 — 28 The north 115 feet of the east 135 feet of the west 330 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 north, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof lying within Southeast 256th Street; TOGETHER WITH road way easement on the east 60 feet of the west 195 feet of the north 200 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof lying within Southeast 256th Street. No. 369097 — ?�3 The north 115 feet of the west 135 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. ; EXCEPT the north 30 feet for road; TOGETHER WITH an easement for road and maintenance of existing water main over the east 60 feet of the west 195 feet of the north 200 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M. ; EXCEPT the north 30 feet for road. No. 369C99 — 3.4 The east 18o feet of the north 405 feet of the east half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 28, Township ..2 Ncrth, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the north 30 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 2677704 . No . 370500 - 3o Lot 10, sunset Manor, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 72 of Plats, page 93, in King County, Washington. No. 370501 — 37 Lot 2, Olympic Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 1i8 of Plats, page 24, in King County, Washington. No. 370503 — 3J The following Apartment of the named condominium intended only for the stated use, according cc Survey Map and Set of Plans recorded as noted, and according to the Condominium Declaration recorded as noted, TOGETHER WITH the stated percentage of undivided interest in the Common Areas and Facilities appertaining to said Apartment, including but not necessarily limited to, the exclusive use of specific Limited Common Areas stated below, if any, the general locations of which are shown in the Survey Map and Plans, but the exact dimensions of which may not be defined: CONDOMINIUM: Olympic Estates USE: Residential VOLUME: 58 of Condominiums PAGE (S) : 35 and 36 SURVEY MAP AND PLANS RECORDING NUMBER(S) : 8201270335 DECLARATION RECORDING NUMBER(S) : 8201270336 AMENDED DECLARATION RECORDING NUMBER(S) : 9603040913 RECORDS OF: King County, Washington UNIT NUMBER: 16A HIT�� � kU P�,rce,t 40 E 41 That portion of Lot 2, City of Kent Short Plat No. SPC-77-14 as recorded under King County Recording No. 7708090530, being a portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 29, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said Lot 2; thence South 02° I V 24" West, along the east line thereof, 30.00 feet; thence North 86' 49' 30" West,parallel with the north line of said lot a distance of 430.88 feet; thence South 01° 34' 28" West 86.00 feet; thence North 88° 25' 32" West 60.00 feet; thence South 02' 30' 30" West 145.00 feet; thence South 86° 53' 00" East 20.00 feet; thence South 03° 07' 00" West 57.39 feet, more or less, to the south line of said Lot 2; thence North 86' 49' 30" West, along said south line 154.18 feet, more or less, to the southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence North 01° 49' 45" East, along the west line thereof, 320.09 feet to the northwest comer of said Lot 2; thence South 86' 49' 30" East,along the north line thereof, 627.89 feet to the Point of Beginning. !71, HIBIT r Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD (TIE) GRANT - ACCEPT AND ESTABLISH BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement, direct staff to accept the grant and establish a budget for the funds to be spent within the S .E. 256th Street road improvement project, as recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee. The Public Works Department has received a grant from the TIE for the construction phase of Southeast 256th Street from 116th Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE. 3 . EXHIBITS: TIE Grant agreement 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. 6F Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) �1 Project Agreement for Construction Proposal Lead Agency City of Kent Project Number Authority Number 9-P-017(012)-1 9115219P Project Title 8 Description Southeast 256th Street 116th Ave SE to 132nd SE Total Amount Authorized Authorization to Proceed Effective From $2,031,358 October 19, 1999 IN CONSIDERATION of the allocation by the Transportation Improvement Board of Transportation Improvement Account (TIA) funds to the project and in the amount set out above, the agency hereby agrees that as condition precedent to payment of any TIA funds allocated at any time to the above referenced project, it accepts and will comply with the terms of this agreement, including the terms and conditions set forth in RCW 47.26: the applicable rules and regulations of the Transportation Improvement Board, and all representations made to the Transportation Improvement Board upon which the fund allocation was based; all of which are familiar to and within the knowledge of the agency and incorporated herein and made a part of this agreement, although not attached. The officer of the agency, by the signature below hereby certifies on behalf of the agency that local matching funds and other funds represented to be committed to the project will be available as necessary to implement the projected development of the project as set forth in the CONSTRUCTION PROSPECTUS, acknowledges that funds hereby authorized are for the development of the construction proposal as defined by Chapter 167, Laws of 1988. If the costs of the project exceed the amount of TIA funds authorized by the Transportation Improvement Board, set forth above, and the required local matching funds represented by the local agency to be committed to the project, the local agency will pay all additional costs necessary to complete the project as submitted to the Board. This shall not prevent the local agency from requesting an increase in the amount of trust funds pursuant to applicable rules of the Board. Projects in dean air non-attainment areas are subject to air quality conformity requirements as specified in RCW 70.94.The lead agency certifies that the project meets all applicable Clean Air Act requirements. IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and performance of the stated conditions by the agency, the Transportation Improvement Board hereby agrees to reimburse the agency from allocated TIA funds and not otherwise, for its reimbursable costs during the above referenced quarter year not to exceed the amount specified. Such obligation to reimburse TIA funds extends only to project costs incurred after the date of the Board's allocation of funds and authorization to proceed with the project. LEAD AGENCY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD S.gnamre o�Na yovCPa✓man Dare _,_,ppve Gxro Caee TIB Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CHANGE IN CONTROL OF TRI-STAR DISPOSAL - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, passage of Resolution No. ratifying approval of a change of control of Tri-Star Disposal . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and resolution 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. 6G DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 1, 1999 TO: Public Works/Plan ing Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom; RE: Change in Control of Tri-Star Disposal Last Fall, Waste Management, Inc. acquired control of Tri-Star Dispoal. At that time; following notification the City of Kent approved the transaction pursuant to Section 4.4.2 of the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, Commercial Recycling and Processing, and General Contract between the City of Kent and Tri-Star Disposal. However the City has not yet taken formal action documenting its approval of the transfer of responsibilities for performance under the contract to Waste Management. In order to formalize the transaction, Waste Management has prepared the attached draft resolution for the Citv's consideration and adoption. MOTION; Recommend authorizing Council adoption of Resolution # upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney, which ratifies approval of a Change of Control of Tri-Star Disposal. MPS299 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, RATIFYING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL, COMMERCIAL RECYCLING AND PROCESSING, AND GENERAL CONTRACT. WHEREAS, Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc. is duly authorized by the City of Kent to perform services under the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, Commercial Recycling and Processing, and General Contract with the City of Kent ("the Contract"); WHEREAS, the City of Kent received notification that Waste Management, Inc. acquired. control of Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc. and the City subsequently issued its approval thereto; WHEREAS, Waste Management, Inc. now desires to undertake corporate consolidation by which the entity performing services under the Contract would be "Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal"; _ WHEREAS, pursuant to the acquisition of control of Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc., by Waste Management, Inc. and the subsequent corporate consolidation, Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc. d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. assumes all obligations as set forth in the Contract; WHEREAS, the parties have asked for a resolution ratifying the City's consent and approval of such change in control and providing the City's consent and approval of such assignment through corporate consolidation; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent hereby consents to and approves the acquisition of control and assignment to the extent such consent is required by the terms of the Contract and applicable law, provided that Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc. d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., confirms that it will be bound by the terms and conditions of the Contract, and any amendments thereto. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, ratifying approval to a change of control of the contractor and approving an assignment of the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, Commercial Recycling and Processing, and General Contract. WHEREAS, Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc. is duly authorized by the City of Kent to perform services under the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, Commercial Recycling and Processing, and General Contract with the City of Kent ("the Contract"); and WHEREAS, the City of Kent received notification that Waste Management, Inc. acquired control of Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc., and the City subsequently issued its approval thereto; and WHEREAS, Waste Management, Inc. now desires to undertake corporate consolidation by which the entity performing services under the Contract would be "Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc., d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal'; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the acquisition of control of Tri-Star Disposal Company, Inc. by Waste Management, Inc., and the subsequent corporate consolidation, Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc. d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal, a 1 Tri-Star Disposal Company Change of Control Ratification subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. assumes all obligations as set forth in the Contract; and WHEREAS, the parties have asked for a resolution ratifying the City's consent and approval of such change in control and providing the City's consent and approval of such assignment through corporate consolidation; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Kent hereby consents and approves the acquisition of control and assignment to the extent such consent is required by the terms of the Contract and applicable law, provided that Washington Waste Hauling & Recycling, Inc., d/b/a Tri-Star Disposal, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., confirms that it will be bound by the terms and conditions of the Contract, and any amendments thereto. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by 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 11999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Tri-Star Disposal Company Change of Control Ratification ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1999. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CiviMcsolanon\Tn-SmCon=il ificalon dac 3 Tri-Star Disposal Company Change of Control Ratification Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HORSESHOE ACRES ANNEXATION ZONING - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. amending the Zoning map to reflect the approved initial land use and zoning designation of M-1 : Industrial Park zone for the Horseshoe Acres Annexation Area. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Exhibit A 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to zoning and land use designation and implementation of an initial zoning for the Horseshoe Acres Annexation. WHEREAS, on June 15, 1999, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3462, approving the annexation of the Horseshoe Acres Annexation (the "Annexation Area") into the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Area is approximately 63 acres of land contiguous with the City's existing boundary, and generally bound on the north by South 259th Street, on the east by Central Avenue (80th Avenue South), and on the south and west by the Green River, and is more particularly described in Exhibit A to this ordinance; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance 3462, the City's Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Annexation Area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing on August 23, 1999, to take public testimony on amendments to the zoning map for the Annexation Area; and 1 Horseshoe Acres Zoning Ordinance WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board considered two zoning and land use alternatives and took public testimony during the public hearing before recommending approval of a zoning alternative to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board, the first public hearing was held on September 21, 1999, and the second public hearing was held on November 2, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board and moved to accept the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation of approval for an initial M-1: Industrial Park zone designation for the Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the initial M-1: Industrial Park zone for the Annexation Area is consistent with existing City Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Use and the initial zone would not require any amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan Land Use map; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an initial zoning of M-1: Industrial Park zone for the Horseshoe Acres Annexation area and the initial zoning is illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential 2 Horseshoe Acres Zoning Ordinance environmental impact, and that on September 15, 1999, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the initial zoning designations adopted by the City Council on November 2, 1999; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.09.055 and the laws of the State of Washington, the initial zoning for the area known as Horseshoe Acres Annexation area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. 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. it SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 Horseshoe Acres Zoning Ordinance APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of 11999. PUBLISHED: day of 11999. 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:\Civil\Ordinance\InitialZoning\HoneshoeAcrosAnnexation.doe i I� �Ii 4 Horseshoe Acres Zoning Ordinance � , � � 1 � � ' ' 1 ® � _� r�� .... �� ■ �V'- 'III � �, �1s~� ' I� ••- ��' �/Y``�.. 1 [ii ,�. • � �. �Q ! �� art ' �a � ■ ■ ■ l!.77 I��i� f � I� � �I�,� ������� �, � .�»,,,ti IT!'n!1°- _. ojl ,,,, _ � _= 1 ;��� J �Wi �: ,z�j ,:.�, . f , � �.�. � �, �s� � �� - �_ �` � � � �I= �, • � Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16, 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: STONEBROOK SUITES BILL OF SALE - ACCEPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Director, authorization to accept the Bill of Sale for Stonebrook Suites submitted by Stonebrook Kent LLC for continuous operation and maintenance of 1, 153 feet of watermain 707 feet of sanitary sewer 1, 378 feet of storm sewer and 1, 740 feet of street improvement and release of bonds after the expiration period. The project is located at the southwest corner of S . 180th Street & 72nd Avenue South. 3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I o � j J. (SW 43RD ST) S 180TH ST ¢: t I •`AV t AI 1ST ST YERS �/ }f r � OR 0 JI I •� � W PROJECT LOCATION w A W Ni e a 3 W w ,� r a 81. d w a � � S 5 188TH ST Vyss� t:.��• W W `4 5 IBBTH ST GLACIER 57 2 C S 190TH $T S 190TH ST � �i{� CNEEM TH ST N J N "'VVV f J 5 192ND ST a ! ST i 5 S 194TH ST fiST N x ,• �w E- _ Go m 5 200TH ST O: IQ R; '\• 5,202ND � 5T xl a S 204TH ST = > E..; 208TH ST 9 206TH ST w; \ d 5 208TH ST W •1•` N.T.S. 5 209TH 1 w c x t S 212TH ST I % N I1 T •1i STON BROOK SUITES 1 ,. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT - CONFIRM 2 , SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ments of Ellen Gimenez, Lilly Kato, Charlene Shaw, Greg Worthing, and Carol Vass to continue serving as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Their new appointments will continue until 10/31/2003 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1998 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have reappointed Ellen Gimenez, Lilly Kato, Charlene Shaw, and Greg Worthing, and Carol Vass to continue serving as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Their new appointments will continue until 10/31/2003. I submit this for your confirmation. JW:jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DIVERSITY BOARD APPOINTMENT - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment of Bohdan Basisty to serve as a member of the Diversity Advisory Board. Mr. Basisty was born in the Ukraine and has been a resident of Kent for five years after immigrating to this country ten years ago. Mr. Basisty is employed at the King County Regional Justice Center and is active in selling real estate in the Kent area. He and his family live in Kent . Mr. Basisty will replace David Daniels, who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM; JIM WHITE, MAYOR DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO DIVERSITY ADVISORY BOARD I have appointed Bohdan Basisty to serve as a member of the Diversity Advisory Board. Mr. Basisty was born in the Ukraine and has been a resident of Kent for 5 years after immigrating to this Country ten years ago. Mr. Basisty is employed at the King County Regional Justice Center and is active in selling real estate in the Kent area. He and his family live in Kent. Mr. Basisty will replace David Daniels, who resigned, and his term will continue until 9/30/2002. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE GRANT FUNDING - ACCEPT AND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Grant Funding and establishment of budget documents, as required. A maximum of $84 , 150 . 00 of ATOD Funds has been awarded to the City upon 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 County School Districts ' Junior and Senior High Youth 7/1/99 through 6/30/99 3 . EXHIBITS: King County Contract No. D27047D, memo from City Attorney' s Office and copy of Evidence of Coverage provided by WCIA 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6L King County Contract No. D27047D Federal Taxpayer ID No. 91-6001254 Department/Division Seattle-King County Department of Public Health/ Agency City of Kent Police Department Project Title Youth Wellness Conference Contract Amount $ 84,150 Fund Code Contract Period From: July 1, 1999 To June 30, 2001 KING COUNTY AGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT- 1999 THIS CONTRACT is entered into by KING COUNTY (the "County'l, and the City of Kent Police Department , whose address is 220 4`" South,Kent,WA 98032, (the "Agency'). WHEREAS, the County has been advised that the following are the current funding sources, funding levels and effective dates: FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING LEVELS EFFECTIVE DATES PMTS-DASAS $18,155 7/l/99- 12/31/99 PMTS-DASAS $39,150 111/00- 12/31/00 PMTS-DASAS $26,345 1/1/01 -6/30/01 TOTAL $84,150 7/1/99-6/30/01 and WHEREAS, the County desires to have certain services performed by the Agency as described in this- Contract, and as authorized by Ordinance No. 13340 . NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of payments, covenants, and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the parties hereto,the parties covenant and do mutually agree as follows: I. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Agency shall provide services and comply with the requirements set forth hereinafter and in the following attached exhibits which are incorporated herein by reference: X Sc=e of Services Attached hereto as Exhibit I X Operating Budget Attached hereto as Exhibit II X Monthly Reimbursement Request&Roorting Forms Attached hereto as Exhibit III X Oualified Service Ormnization Agreement Attached hereto as Exhibit IV X Certificate of Insurance Attached hereto as Exhibit V AG SERVICES—RD 99 Page 1 of 16 City of Y=Polim Depmtmem.99.1)270471) II. DURATION OF CONTRACT This Contract shall commence on the 1st day of July 1999, and shall terminate on the 30th day of June 2001, unless extended or terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Contract. III. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. The County shall reimburse the agency for satisfactory completion of the services and requirements specified in this Contract, payable in the following manner: Upon receipt of the monthly reimbursement request form set forth in Exhibit III and all reports required by the statement(s) of work as set forth in Exhibit I B. The Agency shall submit an invoice and all accompanying reports as specified in the attached exhibits not more than ten (10)working days after the close of each indicated reporting period. The County will initiate authorization for payment after approval of corrected invoices and reports. The County shall make payment to the Agency not more than 45 days after the appropriate invoice is received. C. The Agency shall submit its final invoice and all outstanding reports within 15 days of the date this Contract terminates. If the Agency's final invoice and reports are not submitted by the day specified in this subsection, the County will be relieved of all liability for payment to the Agency of the amounts set forth in said invoice or any subsequent invoice. IV. OPERATING BUDGET When a budget is attached hereto as an exhibit, the Agency shall apply the funds received from the County under this Conte' - accordance with said budget. The Contract may ccntain separate budgets for separate program components. The Agency shall request prior approval from the County for amendment to this Contract when the cumulative amount of transfers among the line item categories within each funding source's-program budget is expected. by the end of the Contract period. to exceed 10% of the Contract amount for that program budget. "Cumulative transfers" shall be defined as the total amount of over-expenditures of individual line item categories within a specific program budget; the total amount for said specific program budget remaining unchanged. Supporting documents necessary to explain fully the nature and purpose of the amendment must accompany each request for an amendment. V. INTERNAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM The Agency shall establish and maintain a system of accounting and internal controls which complies with applicable, generally accepted accounting principles, and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards. AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 2 of 16 City of Kant Police Depar=mt99.D27047D VI. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS A. The Agency shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial, and programmatic records and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the County to ensure proper accounting for all Contract funds and compliance with this Contract. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of six (6) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the Archivist in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 40.14. C. The Agency shall inform the County in writing of the location, if different from the Agency address listed on page one of this Contract, of the aforesaid books, records, documents, and other evidence and shall notify the County in writing of any changes in location within ten(10) working days of any such relocation. VII. AUDITS A. If the Agency expends a total of $300,000 or more in federal financial assistance and has received federal financial assistance from the County during its fiscal year, it shall have an independent audit conducted of its financial statement and condition, which shall comply with the requirements of GAAS (generally accepted auditing standards); GAO's Standards for Audits of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities, and Functions; and OMB Circular A-133, as amended, and as applicable. The Agency shall provide a copy of the audit report to each County division providing financial assistance to the Agency no later than six (6) months subsequent to the end of the Agency's fiscal year. The Agency shall provide to the County their response and corrective action plan for all findings and reportable conditions contained in their audit. When reference is made in their audit to a "Management Letter" or other correspondence made by the auditor,the Agency shall provide copies of those communications and the Agency's response and corrective action plan. B. If the Agency is a municipal corporation, it shall submit to the County a copy of its annual report of examination/audit, conducted by the Washington State Auditor, within thirty (30) days of receipt, which submittal shall constitute compliance with subsection VII.A. VIII. EVALUATIONS AND INSPECTIONS A. The Agency shall provide right of access to its facilities, including those of Jiny subcontractor to the County, the state, and/or federal agencies or officials at all reasonable times in order to monitor and evaluate the services provided under this Contract. The County will give advance notice to the Agency in the case of fiscal audits to be conducted by the County. B. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Contract shall be subject at all times to inspection, review, or audit by the County and/or federaUstate officials so authorized by law during the performance of this Contract and six (6) years after termination hereof, unless a longer retention period is required by law. C. The Agency agrees to cooperate with the County or its agent in the evaluation of the Agency's performance under this Contract and to make available all information reasonably required by 7 any such evaluation process. The results and records of said evaluations shall be maintained and disclosed in accordance with RCW Chapter 42.17. .-kG SERVICES—FID 99 Page 3 of 16 City of K=Police Depa==L99.D270471) IX. CORRECTIVE ACTION If the County determines that a breach'of Contract has occurred, that is, the Agency has failed to comply with any terms or conditions of this Contract or the Agency has failed to provide in any manner the work or services agreed to herein, and if the County deems said breach to warrant corrective action,the following sequential procedure will apply: A. The County will notify the Agency in writing of the nature of the breach; B. The Agency shall respond in writing within three (3) working days of its receipt of such notification, which response shall indicate the steps being taken to correct the specified deficiencies. The corrective action plan shall specify the proposed completion date for bringing the Contract into compliance, which date shall not be more than ten (10) days from the date of the Agency's response, unless the County, at its sole discretion, specifies in writing an extension in the number of days to complete the corrective actions; C. The County will notify the Agency in writing of the County's determination as to the sufficiency of the Agency's corrective action plan. The determination of sufficiency of the Agency's cor_ective -shall be at the sole discretion of the County; D. In the event that the Agency does not respond within the appropriate time with a corrective action plan, or the Agency's corrective action plan is determined by the Coumy to be insufficient, the County may commence termination of this Contract in whole or in part pursuant to Section XI.B; E. In addition,the County may withhold any payment owed the Agency or prohibit the Agency from incurring additional obligations of funds until the County is satisfied that corrective action has been taken or completed; and F. Nothing herein shall be deemed to affect or waive any rights the parties may have pursuant to Section XI, Subsections A, B, C, D, and E. X. ASSIGNMENUSUBCONTRACTING A. The Agency shall not assign or subcontract any portion of this Contract or transfer or assign any clair rising pursuant to this Contract without the written consent of the County. Said consent must be sought in writing by the Agency not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. B. "Subcontract" shall mean any agreement between the Agency and a subcontractor or between subcontractors that is based on this Contract, provid that the term "subcontract" does not include the purchase of(1) support services not related to the subject matter of this Contract, or (2) supplies. M. TERMINATION A. This Contract may be terminated by the County without cause, in whole or in part, prior to the date specified in Section II, by providing the Agency thirty (30) days advance written notice of the termination. AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 4 of 16 City of Knit PoGu Departrnent99.D27047D The County may terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, upon seven (7) days advance written notice in the event: (1) the Agency materially breaches any duty, obligation, or service required pursuant to this Contract, or (2) the duties, obligations, or services required herein become impossible, illegal, or not feasible. If the Contract is terminated by the County pursuant to this Subsection XI.B.1.,the Agency shall be liable for damages, including any additional costs of procurement of similar services from another source. If the termination results from acts or omissions of the Agency, including but not limited to misappropriation, nonperformance of required services, or fiscal mismanagement, the Agency shall return to the County immediately any funds, misappropriated or unexpended, which have been paid to the Agency by the County. C. If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way prior to the termination date set forth above in Section II, the County may, upon written notification to the Agency, terminate this Contract in whole or in part. If the Contract is temvnated as provided in this Subsection: (1)the County will be liable only for payment in accordance with the terms of this Contract for services rendered prior to the effective date of termination; and (2) the Agency shall be released from any obligation to provide such further services pursuant to the Contract as are affected by the termination. Funding or obligations under this Contract beyond the current appropriation year is conditional upon appropriation by the County Council of sufficient funds to support the activities described in the Contract. Should such appropriation not be approved, this Contract will terminate at the close of the current appropriation year. D. The Agency may terminate tlus Contract upon seven (7) days written notice, should the County commit any material breach of this Contract. E. Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Contract or law that either party may have in the event that the terms, and conditions set forth in this Contract are br-ached by the other party. XII. FUTURE SUPPORT The County makes no commitment to support the services contracted for herein and assumes no obligation for future support of the activity contracted herein except as expressly set forth in this Contract. XHI. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION A. In providing services under this Contract, the Agency is an independent Contractor, and neither it nor its officers, agents, or employees are employees of the County for any purpose. The Agency shall be responsible for all federal and/or state tax, industrial insurance, and Social Security liability that may result from the performance of and compensation for these services and shall make no claim of career service or civil service rights which may accrue to a County employee under state or local law. The County assumes no responsibility for the payment of any compensation, wages, benefits, or taxes by, or on behalf of the Agency, its employees, and/or others by reason of this Contract. AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 5 of 16 City of Kart Polim Deparunm 99.D27047D The Agency shall protect, indemnify, and save harmless the County [and the State of Washington, (when any funds for this Contract are provided by the State of Washington)], their officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, and/or losses whatsoever occurring or resulting from (1) the Agency's failure to pay any such compensation, wages, benefits, or taxes, and/or (2) the supplying to the Agency of work, services, materials, or supplies by Agency employees or other suppliers in connection with or support of the performance of this Contract. B. The Agency further agrees that it is financially responsible for and will repay the County all indicated amounts following an audit exception which occurs due to the negligence, intentional act, and/or failure, for any reason, to comply with the terms of this Contract by the Agency, its officers, employees, agents, and/or representatives. This duty to repay the County shall not be diminished or extinguished by the prior termination of the Contract pursuant to the Duration of Contract or the Termination section. C. The Agency shall protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the County, [and the State of Washington (when any fiords for this Contract are provided by the State of Washington)], their officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of damages, arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the negligent acts or omissions of the Agency, its officers, employees, and/or agents, in the performance and/or non-performance of their obligations under this contract. The Agency agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extend to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. For this purposz, Sze Agency, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects the County only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event the County incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the Agency. The County will protect, defend, indemnify, and save harmless the Agency, and the State of Washington (when any fiords for this Contract are provided by the State of Washington) their officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, and/or awards of aamages, arising out oi, ur in any way resulting from, the negligent acts or omissions of the C ....ty, its officers, emr._jaes, and/or agents in the pertorirrance of their obligations under this contract. The County agrees that its obligations under this subparagraph extends to any claim, demand, and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, the County, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects the Agency only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW. In the event the Agency incurs any judgment, award, and/or cost arising therefrom including attorneys' fees to enforce the provisions of this article, all such fees, expenses, and costs shall be recoverable from the County. Claims shall include, but not be limited to, assertions that use or transfer of software, book, document, report, film, tape, or sound reproduction or material of any kind, delivered hereunder, constitutes an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, trade name, and/or otherwise results in unfair trade practice. XIV. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS _ A. By the date of execution of this Contract, the Agency shall procure-and maintain for the duration of this Contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of work hereunder by the Agency, its agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors. The costs of such insurance shall be AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 6 of 16 City of Kent Police Department99.D27047D i paid by the Agency or subcontractor. The Agency may furnish separate certificates of insurance and policy endorsements for each subcontractor as evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this Contract. For All Coverages: Each insurance policy shall be written on an "occurrence"form; except that insurance on a"claims made"form may be acceptable with prior County approval. If coverage is approved and purchased on a "claims made" basis, the Agency warrants continuation of coverage, either through policy renewals or the purchase of an extended discovery period, if such extended coverage is available, for not less than three years from the date of Contract termination, and/or conversion from a`claims made"form to an "occurrence" coverage form. By requiring such minimum insurance, the County shall not be deemed or construed to have assessed the risks that may be applicable to the Agency under this Contract. The Agency shall assess its own risks and, if it deems appropriate and/or prudent, maintain greater limits and/or broader coverage. B. Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. General Liability: Insurance Services Office form number (CG 00 01 Ed. 11-88) covering COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY). 2. Professional Liability: Professional Liability, Errors, and Omissions coverage. In the event that services delivered pursuant to this Contract either directly or indirectly involve or require professional services, Professional Liability, Errors, and Omissions coverage shall be provided. "Professional Services", for the purpose of this Contract section, shall mean any services provided by a licensed professional. 3. Automobile Liability: In the event that services delivered pursuant to this Contract involve the trapsportation of clients by Agency personnel in Agency-owned vehicles or non-owned vehicles, the Agency shall provide evidence of the appropriate automobile coverage. Insurance Services Office form number (CA 00 01 Ed. 12-90) covering BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE, symbol 1 "any auto'; or the appropriate coverage provided by symbols 2, 7, 8, or 9. 4. Workers' Compensation: Workers' Compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial Insurance Act of the State of Washington, as well as any similar coverage required for this work by applicable federal or "Other States"state law. .4G SERVICES—HD 99 Page 7 of 16 City of Kent Police Depaa enL99.1)270471) C. Minimum Limits of Insurance The Agency shall maintain limits no less than, for: 1. General Liability: $1 Million combined single limit per occurrence by bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and for those policies with aggregate limits, a 2 Milli n aggregate limit. 2. Professional Liability, Errors, and Omissions: SlMillion. 3. Automobile Liability: SlMillion combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 4. Workers' Compensation: Statutory requirements of the state of residency. D. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to, and approved by, the County. The deductible and/or self-insured retention of the policies shall not apply to the Agency's liability to the County and shall be the sole responsibility of the Agency. E. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies required in this Contract are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: L General Liability Policies a. The County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behaif�. ..on�.vith:.his Contract. b. To the extent of the Agency's negligence, the Agency's insurance !overage shall be primary insurance as respects the County, Its officers, officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance and/or self-insurance maintained by the County, ..3 officers, officials; employees, or agents shall not contribute with the Agency's insurance or benefit the Agency in any way. c. The Agency's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made and/or lawsuit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. All Poficies Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits, except by the reduction of the applicable aggregate limit by claims paid, until after forty-five (45) days prior written notice has been given to the County. F. Acc=tability of Insurers Unless otherwise approved by the County, AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 9 of 16 City of Kmt Police DeparW=L99.D27047D Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than ANIII, or, if not rated with Bests, with minimum surpluses the equivalent of Bests' surplus size VM. Professional Liability, Errors, and Omissions insurance may be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of B+VII. Any exception must be approved by King County. If, at any time, the foregoing policies shall be or become unsatisfactory to the County, as to form or substance, or if a company issuing any such policy shall be or become unsatisfactory to the County, the Agency shall, upon notice to that effect from the County, promptly obtain a new Policy, and shall submit the same to the County, with appropriate certificates and endorsements, for approval. G. Verification of Covera¢e The Agency shall fumish the County with certificates of insurance and endorsements required by this Contract. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be on forms approved by the County prior to the commencement of activities associated with the Contract. The County reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. H. Subcontractors The Agency shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates of insurance and policy endorsements for each subcontractor. Insurance coverages provided by subcontractors as evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements of this Contract shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. I. Municipal or State Agencv Provisions If the Agency is a Municipal Corporation or an Agency of the State of Washington and is self- insured for any of the above insurance requirements, a certification of self-insurance shall be attached hereto and be incorporated by reference and shall constitute compliance with this section. XV. NONDISCRIMINATION A. King County Code Chapters 12.16 and 12.18 are incorporated by reference as if firlly set forth herein and such requirements apply to this Contract; provide however, that no specific levels of utilization of minority and women in the workforce of the Agency shall be required, and the Agency is not required to grant any preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, t ethnicity or national origin in its employment practices; and provided further that, notwithstanding the foregoing, any affirmative action requirements set forth in any federal regulations, statutes or Hiles included or referenced in the contract documents shall continue to apply. B. During the performance of this Contract, neither the Agency nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Contract shall discriminate nor tolerate harassment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, age, or the presence of any sensory,mental, or physical disability in the employment or application for employment or in the administration or delivery of services or any other benefits under this Contract. AG SERVICES—14D 99 Page 9 of 16 City of Kent Police Deoa ent.99.1)270471) The Agency shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, executive orders and regulations which prohibit such discrimination. These laws include, but are not limited to, RCW Chapter 49.60 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. C. During the performance of this Contract, neither the Agency nor any party subcontracting under the authority of this Contract shall engage in unfair employment practices. It is an unfair employment practice for any: 1. Employer or labor organization to discriminate against any person with respect to referral, hiring,tenure,promotion, terms, conditions,wages or other privileges of employment; 2. Employment agency or labor organization to discriminate against any person with respect to membership rights and privileges, admission to or participation in any guidance program, apprenticeship training program, or other occupational training program; 3. Employer, employment agency, or labor organization to print, circulate, or cause to be printed, published or circulated, any statement, advertisement, or publication relating to employment or membership, or to use any form of application therefor, which indicates any discrimination unless based upon a bona fide occupation qualification; 4. Employment agency to discriminate against any person with respect to any reference for employment or assignment to a particular job classification; 5. Employer, employment agency or a labor organization to retaliate against any person because this person has opposed any practice forbidden by KCC Chapter 12.18 or because that person has made a charge, testified or assisted in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing initiated under the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.18; 6. Publisher, firm, corporation, organization or association printing, publishing or circulating any newspaper, magazine or other written publication to print or cause to be printed or circulated any advertisement with knowledge that the same is in violation of KCC Chapter 12.18.030C., or to segregate and separately designate advertisements as applying only to men and women unless such discrimination is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, enterprise or employment, unless based upon a bona fide_ occupational qualification; and/or 7. Employer to prohibit any person from speaking in a language other than English in the workplace unless: a. The employer can show that requiring that employees speak English at certain times is justified by business necessity,and b. The employer informs employees of the requirement and the consequences of violating the rule. D. Reporting 1. The Agency entering into a contract or agreement with King County valued at $25,000 or more shall submit to the County Executive a total personnel inventory report providing employment data for minorities, females, and persons with disabilities. AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 10 of 16 City of Kent Police Dena ML99.1327047D The Agency shall complete the employment profile form provided by the County and attach the completed form to this Contract. Subject to the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.16.060, the Agency's personnel inventory report shall be effective for two years after the date on which the report was submitted. 2. The Agency entering into a contract with King County valued at more than $25,000, contracts which in the aggregate have a value to the Agency of more than $25,000 should submit an affidavit of compliance in the form provided by the County, demonstrating commitment to comply with the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.16 in accordance with paragraph A of this Section XV. The Agency shall complete the affidavit of compliance provided by the County and attach the original, notarized, completed form to this Contract. Subject to the provisions of KCC Chapter 12.16.060, the Agency's affidavit of compliance shall be effective for two years after the date on which the report was submitted. If the Agency engages in unfair employment practices as defined above, remedies as set forth in KCC Chapter 12.18 shall be applied. The Agency will complete all reports and forms (including Department of Social and Health Services non-discrimination forms, where applicable) provided by the County and will otherwise cooperate fully with the County in monitoring and assisting the Agency in providing nondiscriminatory programs. XVI, NONDISCRIMINATION IN SUBCONTRACTING PRACTICES A. In accordance with the provisions of Washington Initiative 200, no County Minority and Women Business (M(WBE) utilization requirements shall apply to this Contract. No minimum level of M/WBE subcontractor participation or purchase from M/WBE certified vendors is required and no preference will be given by the County to a bidder or proposer for their M/WBE utilization or M/WBE status. The completion of County M/WBE forms which may be included in the contract documents is not required. Provided however, that any affirmative action requirements set forth in any federal regulations or statutes included or referenced in the Contract documents will continue to apply. B. During the term of this Contract, the Agency shall not create barriers to open and fair opportunities for M/WBEs to participate in all County contracts and to obtain or compete for contracts and subcontracts as sources of supplies, equipment, construction and services. In considering offers from and doing business with subcontractors and suppliers, the Agency shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, cued, religion, sex, age, nationality, marital status, sexual orientation or the presence of any mental or physical disability in an otherwise qualified disabled person. C. The Agency shall maintain, until at least 12 months after completion of all work under this contract, records and information necessary to document its level of utilization of M/WBEs and other businesses as subcontractors and suppliers in this contract and in its overall public and private business activities. The Agency shall also maintain, until 12 months after completion of 1 all work under this contract, all written quotes, bids, estimates or proposals submitted to the Contractor by all businesses seeking to participate in this Contract.' The Agency shall make such documents available to the County for inspection and copying upon request. If this contract AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page I I of 16 City of Kent Police Depeement99.D270471) involves federal.funds, Agency shall comply with all record keeping requirements set forth in any federal rules, regulations or statutes included or referenced in the contract documents. D. King County encourages the utilization of minority owned businesses ("MBEs') and women- owned businesses ("WBEs'�(collectively, "M/WBEs') in County contracts. The County encourages the following practices to open competitive opportunities for M/WBEs: • Attending a pre-bid or pre-solicitation conference, if scheduled by the County, to provide project information and to inform M/WBEs of contracting and subcontracting opportunities. • Placing all qualified small businesses attempting to do business in King County, including M/WBEs, on solicitation lists, and providing written notice of subcontracting opportunities to M/WBEs and all other small businesses capable of performing the work, including without limitation all businesses on any list provided by the County, in sufficient time to allow such businesses to respond to the written solicitations. • Breaking down total requirements into smaller tasks or quantities, where economically feasible, in order to permit maximum participation by small businesses including 1NUWBEs. • Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirements of this contract permit, that encourage participation by small businesses, including M/WBEs. • Providing M/WBEs that express interest with adequate and timely information about plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract. • Utilizing the services of available minority community organizations, minority contractor groups, local minority assistance offices, the County, and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of M/WBEs. E. Any violation of the mandatory requirements of the provisions of this Section shall be a material breach of contract for which the Agency may be subject to damages and sanctions provided for by contract and by applicable law. XVII. SECTION 504 AND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The agency has completed a Disability Self-Evaluation Questionnaire for all programs and services offered by the Agency (including any services not subject to this Contract); and has evaluated its services, programs and employment practices for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended ("504") and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA'�. The Agency has prepared a Corrective Action Plan for structural, programmatic, and/or service changes necessary at each of its premises within the State of Washirgton to comply with 504 d.the ADA, and it s attached as an exhibit to this Contract and is incorporated herein by reference. XVIII. SUBCONTRACTS AND PURCHASES The Agency will include the above Sections XV, XVI, and XVII in every.subcontract or purchase order for goods or services which are the subject matter of this Contract. XIX. CONFLICT OF INTEREST KCC Chapter 3.04 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth hence, and the Agency agrees to abide by all conditions of said chapter. Failure by the Agency to comply with any requirement of said KCC Chapter shall be a material breach of contract. A. The Agency covenants that no officer, employee, or agent of the County who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and implementation of the program funded herein, or any other person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in AG SERVICES—RD 99 Page 12 of 16 City of Kent Polim Departm=09.1)270471) connection with the planning and implementation of the program funded herein shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. The Agency shall take appropriate steps to assure compliance with this provision. B. If the Agency violates the provisions of Subsection XIX.A. or does not disclose other interest required to be disclosed pursuant to KCC Chapter 3.04, the County will not be liable for payment of services rendered pursuant to this Contract. Violation of this Section shall constitute a substantial breach of this Contract and grounds for termination pursuant to Section XI. above, as well as any other right or remedy provided in this Contract or law. XX. CREDENTIALS REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONERS When an Independent Health Care Practitioner (IHCP), employed by your Agency, agrees to perform health care services funded by this contract, the Agency must adhere to the minimum requirements for crdentialing IHCPs set forth in the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health (SKCDPH) Credentials Policy. 1HCPs are those health care providers who can, within the scope of their training, licensure, and experience, independently diagnose, initiate, alter, or terminate health care treatment. ICHPS include, but are not limited to: physicians, pathologists, dentists, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, chiropractors and naturopaths. Your Agency will receive an annual on-site visit from SKCDPH Credentials to verify that information is maintained which meets or exceeds these minimum requirements. Minimum Requirements for Credentialing IHCPs: • A copy of practitioner licensure, certification or registration and evidence of primary source verification thereof. • A copy of professional education degree(s) and evidence of verification thereof. • Evidence of review and verification of professional references. • Evidence of review of history of liability claims and adverse actions. • Evidence of review of a practitioner's health fitness for work. • Evidence cf review of any findings from professional review organizations. • Evidence of practice review by peers. • Maintenance of a secure environment where the confidentiality of each practitioner's professional credentials and profile are safeguarded. Excellent tools for the collections of information on your practitioners are the Washington Practitioner Application and the Regence Blue Shield Addendum. Once completed, these will provide the basis for soliciting verification. These would meet the minimum requirements as stated above. For copies of these forms and other technical assistance, call the SKCDPH Credentials Office (206) 205-0786. In addition to the above, Agencies who employ IIICPs who practice at SKCDPH sites are required to complete Appendix 1, Profile for the Contracted Independent Health Care Practitioner (UICP). Appendix 1 must be completed by each 1HCP within 30 days of their j assignment to an SKCDPH site. IHCPs must also enclose documentation on their licensure, education, etc. AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 13 of 16 City of Kent Police DepamccnL99.D27047D XXI. POLITICAL ACTIVITY PROHIBITED None of the funds, materials, property, or services provided directly or indirectly under this Contract shall be used for any partisan political activity or to further the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. XXII. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE, MAINTENANCE. AND OWNERSHIP A. The Agency agrees that any equipment purchased, in whole or in part, with Contract funds at a cost of $1,000 per item or more, when the purchase of such equipment is reimbursable as a Contract budget item, is upon its purchase or receipt the property of the County and/or federal/state government. B. The Agency shall be responsible for all such property, including the proper care and maintenance of the equipment. C. The Agency will ensure that all such equipment will be returned to the County or federal/state government upon termination of this Contract unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. D. The Agency will admit the County's Property Management Officer to the Agency's premises for the purpose of marling such property with County property tags. E. The Agency shall establish and maintain inventory records and transaction documents (purchase _ requisitions,packing slips, invoices, receipts) of equipment purchased with Contract funds. XXIII. NOTICES Whenever this Contract provides for notice to be provided by one parry to another, such notice shall be: A. In writing; and B. Directed to the chief executive officer of the Agency and the director/manager of &.—. County department/division specified on page 1 of this Contract. Any time within which a parry must take some action shall be computed from the date that the notice is received by said party. AG SERVICES—RD 99 Page 14 of 16 City of Kam police Depauneot99.1>270471) i XXIV. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS The parties to this Contract hereby mutually agree that if any patentable or copyrightable material or article should result from the work described herein, all rights accruing from such material or article shall be the sole property of the Agency. The Agency agrees to and does hereby grant to the County, irrevocable, nonexclusive, and royalty-free license to use, according to law, any material or article and use any method that may be developed as part of the work under this Contract. The foregoing license shall not apply to existing training materials, consulting aids, checklists, and other materials and documents of the Agency which are modified for use in the performance of this Contract. XXV. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS Either party may request changes to this Contract. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Contract. XXVI. KING COUNTY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROCUREMENT POLICY The Agency shall use recycled paper for the production of all printed and photocopied documents related to the fiilfillment of this Contract and shall ensure that, whenever possible, the cover page of each document printed on recycled paper bears an imprint identifying it as recycled paper. If the cost of recycled paper is more than 15%higher than the cost of non-recycled paper, the Agency may notify the Contract Administrator, who may waive the recycled paper requirement. The Agency shall use both sides of paper sheets for copying and printing and shall use recycled/recyclable products wherever practical in the fulfillment of this Contract. XXVILENTIRE CONTRACTMAIVER OF DEFAULT The parties agree that this Contract is the complete expression of the terms hereto and any oral or written representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Contract. Waiver of any default shall not be'deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver of breach of any provision of the Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of the Contract unless stated to be such through written approval by the County, which shall be attached to the original Contract. I I j AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 15 of 16 City of Kent Police Depa==L99.D27047D XXVIII. SERVICES PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND RULE AND REGULATION The Agency and any subcontractor agree, when applicable, to abide by the terms of Chapters 26.44, 69.54, 70.96A, 71.05, 71A.10, 71A.14, 71A.18, 71.20, 71.24, and 71.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; the Basic Interagency Contract between the Department of Social and Health Services and King County, as amended, and regulations of the state and federal governments, as applicable, which control disposition of funds granted under this Contract, all of which are incorporated herein by reference. In the event that there is a conflict between any of the language contained in any exhibit or attachment to this Contract, the language in the Contract shall control over the language contained in the exhibit or the attachment, unless the parties affirmatively agree in writing'D the contrary. KING COUNTY: AGENCY: FOR King County Executive Signaturg Date Name (Please type or print) Date Approved as to Form: OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY January 13, 1999 i i i i I i AG SERVICES—HD 99 Page 16 of 16 City of Kent Police Departm=09.1)2704713 AAA. BUDGET WORKSHEET Check the box for the appropriate budget period: [t] July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 [] January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 [] January 1, 2001 to June A 2001 BUDGET CATEGORY Amount Match Amount TOTAL Requested from Provided (In-Kind ATODPD ' and/or Dollar) (SALARIES: Planning, Team Building and Conference 19,011 i 19,011 i BcivtF ITS Planning, Team Building] 5,._ i 95 Z 5,952 Viand Confer-=nce I -ONTRACTcu iStRViCSS I 12,880 1 5,820 18,700 i GOODS & SeRViCES 4,525 j 7,455 I 11 ,980 TRA:N1NG 750 750 1 ,500 i i I i I !TRAVEL 250 250 _ i CUhii•IUNI I iDONATIONS I 9,450 i 9,450 TOTALS 18,155 I 48,688 66,843 I 4 I BUDGET WORKSBEET Check the box for the appropriate budget period: [ ] July 1, 1999 ro December 31, 1999 [j January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001 BUDGET CATEGORY Amount I Match Amount I TOTAL Requested from Provided (In-Kind ATODPD ; and/or Doilar) I i SALARIES 26,616 26,010 3Ei 1E=ITS a,3-3 3,333 I I CONTRACTED I { ^ SERVICES 21 ,000 3,000 24,000 I ' i i ciOODS b SERVICES 6,845 3,655 9,300 I I i I � I I i TOTALS 26,845 i 41 ,604 I 68,449 I f I I 4 I Seattle-Kine County P. rf, - .T Fn,ti ; rz-1,4 Request Match Total GOODS & SERVICES Office Supplies 650 650 Youth Board (sweatshirts & team building) 2,500 2,500 (subsistence) 700 700 Conference Materials 3,700 1,700 5,400 Follow-Up Materials 5,845- 2,905 8,750 Printing 825 375 1,200 Postage 780 780 Indirect Costs (audit, insc, payroll, legal, etc) 1,500 1,500 21,480 TRAVEL Staff &Youth Board 250 250 250 TRAINING Staff 1,000 1,000 Youth Board 750 750 1,500 2,500 COMMUNITY DONATIONS Goods & Services 5,650 Presenters (gratis) 3,000 Facility 3,500 9,450 ATOD REQUEST (one year) $45,000 TOTAL CONFERENCE AND FOLLOW-UP COSTS $142,213 VOLUNTEER HOURS (Youth = $81 Adult= $15) Conference (1,019 hrs) $9,250 9,250 Youth Board Planning (650 hrs) 5,200 5,200 Conference Implementation (570 hrs) 5,375 5,375 i 19,825 } FEES 35 schools x 10 team members x $6.00 ($2,100.) , ' This is where we will make cut during 2000 to reduce grant amount to 84,150. ycbudgetest BUDGET WORKSHEET Check the box for the appropriate budget period- [J July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 [�] January 1, 2000 to December 31,2000 [] January 1, 2001 to June 30. 2001 BUDGET CATEGORY Amount Match Amount TOTAL Requested from Provided (In-Kind ATODPD I and/or Dollar) SALARIES 45,627 I 45,627 j i 3cNEE7TS 14,285 I 14,285 - CONTRACTED SER'/ICES I 33,880 8,320 I 42,200 i I I i !2000S SERVICES l�,->�r 1. 10 21 ,480 j 4,520 TRAVEL 250 I 250 TRAININLi I 750 i ,75U 2,500 � C0f•IidUWiTY DONATi0N5 I j 9,450 i 9,450 j TOTALS -4670� 91 ,292 135,792 39,150 —I O C� -' N O N O N d a .. .0 001 N DZ = 3 — � � v, � m — I I pr 00 CD w m u1 v, • a H Q. C m m 7 - 41 &i 4&1 H to 41 in to 0 O � A N (J N O Co_ cn O cn O • • • O N fA 401 49 fw to H H CD I A 1 OD t0 J W N N • a ca CD O O O Q1 O N O ' a ' C cwt ca 0• A�i fJ'C1a-:<W r �J` t0' 'O_. • • .�S T H fA 'A EH 14 m EN IY 40 ER _ •"I �? O W Q A W • • 7 0 0 0 0 . `tiaCD tw 41 v+ t» 40 to fA M SAD CD _ A I.1 N _ tD �. O A N •_ • a � w O N ? J N IA_ N W N c + 7 N O C 0 0 O N v • b O _ _ co M V1�?? f/M•fN&l=h HY �HfR • 0 CD ".��:yr C. CI fT -, • • A > O • a • dl tJ+ O • • M &1 fA NI 49 fN GN rn IS N • a- � W W OD 01 • • • a 01 i � I � W � • �: S W A N `i W O� • Ctp'' CI c ! ?'r-a 4n 4rA H 41 HI 40 &f VP O • • A A � • . —I -J CO r O 0 0 CO 0 O City of Kent Police Department Federal ATOD Prevention Statement of Work,Page 1 EXHIBIT-.4" PUBLIC HEALTH—SEATTLE&KING COUNTY ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND OTHER DRUG PREVENTION DIVISION(ATODPD) CITY OF KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT WORK STATEMENT This Work Statement is intended to cover the period from July 23, 1999 through June 30, 2001. Funding is allocated and authorized for the period July 23, 1999 through June 30,2000. Funding for the period July 1, 2000 through June 30,2001 is allocated but is dependent upon availability of funds from the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention via the State of Washington Department of Health and Social Services' Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse(RASA) and the successful completion of services as described in the Work Statement. Agency Responsibility City of Kent Police Department (the agency) will appoint appropriate staff member(s)/individual(s) who shall be responsible for the work descnW herein. This person(s) must have the.necessary skills and knowledge to plan and implement the alcohol,tobacco and other drug(ATOD)primary prevention strategies described in this Statement of Work. Definitions: Prevention — shall follow the 1995 definition from the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Prevention is: (a) the promotion of constructive lifestyles and norms that discourage drug abuse; (b) development of social environments that facilitate drug-free lifestyles; and (c) a dynamic process that must relate to and continue through every emerging generation. ATOD Primary Prevention--shall mean prevention which targets individuals before they start using alcohol, tobacco and/or other drugs. Chemical dependency early intervention, treatment and aftercare services will not be funded under this grant. Direct Services—shall mean services delivered either by telephone or in-person to at least one individual not employed by the agency. Indirect Services — shall mean services which support the delivery of direct service. These are project planning time, agency staff consultation, curriculum or training preparation, project documentation and report writing. High Risk Youth — shall follow the definition described in Section 517(g) of the Public Health Service (PHS)AcL High Risk Youth are youth under the age of 21 who; (a) are children of substance abusers; (b) are victims of physical, sexual or psychological abuse; (c) have experienced cbronic failure in school; (d) have dropped out of school; (e) have become pregnant; (f) are economically disadvantaged; (g) have G:WTODPrevention\SOW99to01\City of Kent 99 to 01,doc City of Kent Police Department Federal ATOD Prevention Statement of Work,Page 2 committed a violent or delinquent act; (h) have experienced mental health problems; (i) have attempted suicide; and/or 0)have experienced long-term physical pain due to injury. Target Group — shall mean persons, organizations, communities, or other types of groups the prevention program is intended to affect Fundine Source The source of these funds is from the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention(CSAP). The federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.959. Unallowable Costs: Unless an explicit and specific federal waiver is obtained, the following costs are not allowable under any agreement which includes federal funds: a. Cash payments to clients; b. Cost of purchase of permanent improvement of land or facilities,other than minor remodeling; c. Cost of purchase of major medical equipment with an acquisition cost in excess of$5,000; d. _ Costs used as cost-sharing or matching for other federal funds requiring non-federal matching funds; e. Costs of financial assistance to any entity which is not either public or non-profit; f. The salary of an individual at a rate in excess of$120,000 per year pursuant to Section 213 of P.L. 101-517. In addition,the use of federal fiords to influence or attempt to influence the award of,or amendment to, any federal contract,grant,loan,or cooperative agreement is prohibited. Prevention services shall not include chemical dependency early intervention, treatment and aftercare services. No funds shall be spent for police officer salaries or school teacher salaries,including salaries for substitutes. However, funds may be used to pay for support materials used in the delivery of school based prevention (inciuding DARE)programs. Funds shall be used to supplement and not supplant fiords which have been used for prevention activities in the absence of this contract. Fee for Service Policv: While agencies are encouraged when possible to collect fees for prevention services,the services reimbursed by another organization or by client fees cannot be submitted in falSDment of this contract Should partial fees be collected,the service goal can be reported as completed but the agency may submit to ATODPD only those hours not covered by the fee collected Services firlly funded outside of ATODPD may not be counted in firtfiIIment of performance requirements. No organization or individual shall be refused services based upon their inability to pay a fee. G:\ATODPrevention\SOW99to01\City of Kent 99 to OLdoc City of Kent Police Department Federal ATOD Prevention Statement of Work,Page 3 Publicity Policv: The agency is encouraged to submit a news release to the media announcing the project and that it was funded by Public Health—Seattle& King County's Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division. This news release, and any ensuing articles, must be submitted with the agency's monthly report to ATODPD. Publicity flyers/announcements shall include information that this project is funded in whole(or part)by Public Health—Seattle&King County's Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division. Copvrivht Policy- In accordance with Section MV, PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, of this Contract, a royalty-free license to use any material or article that may be developed as a part of the work under this Contract shall include, but not be limited to,the right of the County to reproduce and/or distribute said material or article independently of the Agency. Proiect Elements: A. Standard Procrammine for All ATODPD Contractors under Cateeories I and III All ATODPD contractors receiving funds under Categories I and III of the ATODPD's 1999 Request for Proposals(RFP)will be required to conduct the standard programming elements listed below. A.1. Partners in Prevention(PIP)Regional Peer Trainine A.1.1 Attend all PIP planning meetings. A 12 Participate on a minimum of one subcommittee. Attend all subcommittee meetings and complete all tasks determined by subcommittee. A.1.3 Recruit at least one team of youth and adult advisors from the agency's target population,and submit all necessary paperwork by established time line. A.I.4 Attend the entire fall retreat and fulfill all staff duties as determined by planning group. A.2. Prevention Proe am Coordination A2.1 Participate in regular meetings with all the ATODPD prevention contractors. A2.2 Provide consultation and technical assistance to other ATOM prevention contractors and with other prevention specialists as requested by ATODPD. A2.3 Submit all monitoring reports and documentation required by this contract to ATODPD(refer to section of this work statement on"Agency Responst3n7ity'). A.2.4 Attend training and staff meetings necessary to implement regional prevention strategies. G:\ATODPrevention\SOW99to01\City of Kent 99 to ol.doc City of Kent Police Department Federal ATOD Prevention Statement of Work,Page 4 B. Agency-Specific Prosammine The proposal in its entirety as submitted by the Agency in response to the ATODPD's 1999 RFP is incorporated as part of this statement of work except as follows: • Exhibit 'Z. Operating Budget supercedes budget information contained in the Agency's RFP proposal To summarize the Agency's activities described in its RFP proposal, excerpts from the RFP are contained in Exhibit(s) 77 . Alfxrh. 3Aya that depict the Agency's Logic Model and Project Timeline. Reimbursement Requests and Reoortintt Requirements The agency will ensure that monthly reimbursement requests and performance reports are completed and submitted in a timely manner to the Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Division (ATODPD), using the forms contained within Exhibit . The agency must submit to ATODPD a report of the previous month's activities on or before the tenth(1 Oth)working day of the month. Reimbursement to the agency may be withheld for any month in which the agency has not submitted the contractually required reports by the date indicated In addition,reimbursement to the agency may be reduced for under performance. — The agency shall comply with additional reporting requirements and provide information as follows: • For each six-month period of the biennium(Period 1: 7/1/99 to 12/31/99;Period 2: l/l/00 to 6/30/00; Period 3: 7/I/00 to 12/31100; and Period 4: i/l/01 to 6/30/01), the agency will be required to submit the current version of the"Program Activity Reporting Form"(see Exhibit X. 5 to ATODPD that includes the following: (A) initial date of service; \B)rival date of service; (C) direct prevention service hours; (D)indirect prevention service hours; (E)number of sessions; (F)number of participants served; �)race of participants; (A)ethnicity of participants; (1) ages of participants; (.1) gender of participants; and(K)disability status of participants. • For each completed prevention strategy, the agency will be required to submit a process and outcome evaluation that measure changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, and/or behaviors as they relate to the agency's logic model and chosen risk/protective factors targeted for the strategy. The agency will provide to ATODPD any relevant documents and all evaluations produced by this strategy. • The agency will work with ATODPD staff and/or professional evaluation staff to finalize and monitor an evaluation plan that includes the following: (1) Baseline information related to ATOD use,misuse,and abuse. (2) Goals and objectives and action steps to achieve the objectives. (3) Selection and administration of appropriate instruments for collecting program-specific information. G:\AT0DPreventton\S0W99to01\City of Kent 99 to 0l.doc AFXHi81T Ill Public Health Settle k ring Count) HEALTHY PEOPLE HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Alcohol, Tobacco And Other Drug Prevention Program Reimbursement Request & Performance Summary Submit an original to your Program Monitor following month of service: [] Jackie Jamero Bergamo; [] Carol Jernigan; [] Cheri McCoubrey;or[]Pat Mouton Public Health—Seattle&King County Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention Program 999 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle WA 98104-4039 • ORGANIZATION: ■ PREPARED BY: = • MONTH AND YEAR OF SERVICE DELIVERY: • FEDERAL PREVENTION EXPENDITURES REQUESTED THIS PERIOD (State BARS Code 566.22): S • SUMMARY OF CLIENTS SERVED THIS MONTH: Total Number of Unduplicated New Clients Served This Month Total Number of Continuine Clients Served This Month TOTAL NUMBER OF CLIENTS FOR MONTH: • SUMMARY OF HOURS THIS MONTH: Total Direct Service Hours (e.g. face to face,telephone) Total Indirect Service Hours(e.g. planning,development) Prevention Staff Time Off Work(e.g.vacation,comp,sick leave) => TOTAL HOURS FOR MONTH: ■ AUTHORIZED BY(Signature Of Authorized Representative of Organization): • TITLE: DATE: a (For Public Health—Seattle&King County Use Only) Approved for payment: S Contract#: Suffix_Cag 8096,Account 53181, Project H00864,Option^(Rcv=ue"PMTS-DASAS",Account 47506) Program Monitor(Signature) Date �•L?L � AttAcG�. / (n .. o, N { 3 D 2 ca m O O O O _ m -2i Z CP w T 2 D A m N 9 o' v < M m o n < m d o o m rr 3 (On r m o < m D o (D - m w j 0 a o NZ. m m n ° m L'L m 7 (D C m ` a O m m "'� n r..� Fr (n CD n �O m D -n m Ero > > (ate 2m m (C G (D < C7 G m m . m n m =0 v p — ° _ C � G 3 m N (D p O L' 0 <(D m 5 ^3z m m c (u Zs a ° c � � � m as c' s (°oo .°- o0 0 rr N (p N 7 < O a m 3 O Q m m .(•�. ...�. 3"-f.n D D C � C 7Z < = w ? 2 G 9 O ca S y G 2 n � m 1 � n2 m o 'i w } 3 � ' CD CDFL 6 GD gym ° -1 m 6 m m CA Z m G f/! w m C m O m N N _°+ Subfic Health Sn[tic R King Cowry WEALTHY PEOPLE.HEALTHY COMMUNITIES Alcohol, Tobacco &Other Dug Prevention Program Monthly Narrative Report Month&Year of Service: Agency Name: Person Completing This Form: Prevention Contract Highlights: Training/Confercnces Attended and by Whom: Media Contacts/Coverage (attach any news clippings): Successes &Challenges: G.U7ODRmmmm\SOW99m0f Wow*Nmmd Agmtds Alcohol, Tobacco &Other Drug Prevention Program Monthly Narrative Report Month&Year of Service: Agency Name: Person Completing This Form: Staffing Changes/Update: Evaluation Update &Progress: Other L ]Questions [ ]Comments: G. A70DRevmmUOW99molWm o yNm =RV rdx x.11C� Asti • 3 rr 0co Cn l! C O. -7 '� n f0m y CD CO N O v v v a y y. 0 V1 � m o o a a o o � m m m C=7 f ro CD a` A CD w• 7O'� lC mpi a •3f-9 nw w r a C CL A p 0C Pr) n• W G < aDc9 c < yywco G S p CCm yUA C3 Cn .0�... w tzCO 0 c W3 w .n-. a cn �. 0 00 H O m _ wnoa300C] m33 � = o '< A � C� Sso '� � y O .a c 0 wc. 0 Co C• c 0 u y •" �, CyZ1 ^• N c^'fo �• c0o c �• � CD C C O S - C w = oo ro O w = 7 y y T• 0 co �• O N y d O tz ZI O A n O O Co f70 y o e n o = acp . w f0 CD �� " ❑. N r I •, o o R c m CL ce ? r' y x• m w p C .O.y 0 y N w S O p w a O ❑ H1 3 G O ? w H 0 N o 00 cno N A S. goit C S eo C. W O N• W C w co n CD O x O CD �i O a m m o o 3 0 " ,� c "03 m y v� -t -- to co' 7 S co m co 0 0' S y w c<9• :°. F m m •.CD N O fJ x m o' w Com 0 " R ^. Q n co 3. w f T 0 3 ^oa c^o3• m E G co O m C ^ ^ (IQ aQ 00 C? O ? m n mCD C H ? C. UQ p• a• 7. O a c ? O w O — � < '^ 3• e1 ^ CV] O' er 3• cmC� (•7ro O a � G G .C/] C/� ° c m n y fJ `C w• °O°• ' ^ CDC. O N O -col{ co y R co o n co Ctf �• Q• T m m m, coF tt o0.. �coc o Co H c 0 C7 w �. cn o cmcc oA lyN� o ov roCa. O 0 m N C' f9 m O CO C• 't<I 0 C m 7• M A 5 ^ `` 0 � — _ I- qQ ® §' eEa / 0 — co 2 } cu 0f aw0 cm -0 - _ W , .nn ) n o , � " co.= o § / ) CDa r ƒ = co UQ = g � i0. [ Ea % 2 R ; l , %4E a I «04 cr c 7 CDa 0 � 0. -0 CD g Ei I E E E . >] \ ƒ § i] § ] ¢f2iCLI", ? 2 ƒ� § k \ c, —ja "k / ] § a2 \ S ° & § 799 �2c0 = a +� G 2 n 0 � 0 � cm. \ - . ] / . cl 8 = CD � �® 232m § 28E Rs "DaOQ § ƒ CIO & co � k2 / 2 � § 90 . * 0 ® , 70 . , . s X•.lam; /1 t/Rcln • `7� i ..- N O W C-) 17 C1 CC K 4. cc C, I fD o c o o ._ ' .o O 0 (p Z A II Ri -'fi tG ' CO --1 .� rci•cab N p (e O (D O n 'O C I N R fD rD. (D 0. -1 fD S 7rt Jf . O• rD (D c (D T O rD '� (D 1•Z am rD A 7 rD T o. 7 7 a 7 G 3 C O .••.: (D j � o CD CD N N(G 19 O 7 �+ c O tQ CD G _ a 17 R ty Rro n •03 3z � 3L7p 3 C-)CI� J:� �I�I��(D � �If (�.la � ���.ape rD (D fD et • (D rD R �• rD O-M ert- rD(D N rD N N (Ji N rD O).S Z �• 'C t•+ 7 � �S � •.Ys Cl) CT CD O M n O r - G aO•e m ~'3 en(m w � ' n Tr3 O - R VI S mrri .tea•--s'io'. z -a mn a �• !l) F+ N W W N r n N N 1-+ I N N N N N aoe ao-e aO-e aoa aA arc I aa-e aA aoe aae a�x aoe ZR awe a�a a o Ul e "K awe .: O n a _CO I�1 n d N d n tc n < 5:-mG u =7 -�:t..a.r-•r ry (C.i-�eT-C� L�yr l0 O CIO I••. Vl F+ :. .. w. � l to < (D (O Z \ o R r+ Rto +=0 to to a torn+-=?.Z mG CD CD Or rD CD (D CD O 'S O C) G O.C C) �G r) mo < —• _��ey� DIi.�, 0 o a R R !V Z OTC W I-+ F+ R O O O O (D N _ Cl < n . e9 c C O\ N\ N O N O CD 0 .O CD ('D 3 CD O CD CD CD d CD O O N 3 N C. O L O cu O Z O 7 C. c = CD (D - r •�,'Q C' - Program Activity Reporting Form 1997-1998 Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development . The due dates and locations for submitting the 'rogmam Activity Reporting (PAR) form depends upon which of the public entities-the Department of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) or r Community Mobilization (CM) - are funding the I + program. For detailed guidelines and examples for completing the PAR, see the PAR Guide. Because this is a new form, there are undoubtedly improvements and refinements that remain to be made. Inevitably, we could not i anticipate all possible reporting situations. There will be some reporting situations that "don't quite _ fit'with the forte's design. we ask that you do two ■ things: First, rely on your common. sense about _ how to.interpret the for in the context of your program. Second, if you alert us to the problem you are encountering we will be able to improve the form for next year (CM contractors should call ■ Amy Lofquist at 206 28&1805. DASH contractors ■ should contact their Regional Administrator).Also, all data should represent unduplicated ■ counts of program participants or service activities. ■ Report only on services that occurred in the _ six-month reporting period, and on participant j who first entered the program activity during the six-month reporting period. A few items on this forth are specific to either DASH or CM. Items i ■ within a box with a gray background (like those below) need to be completed only for DASA funded programs. Items on Page 6 are completed _ only for CM-funded programs. Jointly funded I • programs would need to complete all items. l County: i C Adams O Gray's Harbor O Pierce C Asotin O Island O San Juan i C Benton O Jefferson O Skagit ■ Date: i O Chelan C King O Skamania ■ O Clallam C Kitsap O Snohomish • O Clark O Kittitas O Spokane • C Columbia C Klickitat O Stevens Local Program irrle: O Cowlitz O Lewis O Thurston C Douglas O Lincoln O Wahkiakum C Ferry O Mason O Walla Walla I C Franklin O Okanogan O Whatcom ServicePro%leer.->- ♦an,rn: O Garfield O Pacific O Whitman ■ O Grant O Pend Oreille O Yakima PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA - - - - - - - - -- - - - 6296 Enter the amount of. Do these funds represent: DASA Prevention Funds:S O CSAP Activity Costs Matching Funds:S O Program Costs 2)Cl)IM(,) (] OOOCD CD©CDC CD CD(M MI om®c� (M CD CD CDJ 4M CaCDM ©(Z)(]0 ° CDGi - I®©CD CID1 (!✓® CD Cr I®tX X M! C7f'i X(3)(Ml C$ i CE) a€)C,(1)X � ? °Inmv :�� it r�i ice' ltll' Y. lily .1 YrJtLI ri 11 � it 4rlq p •11 li• For ;`•e prnuraet ac:i:ite. Indic:to .,hi.a one of the risk or protective actors are the orimar: : if both DASA and CM funding supported ;he program activity, two risk or protective factors :nav be identified. DASA For the programs with DASA funding, all funded program activities were targeted on risk factors. Indicate the ONLY: risk factor (1-19)that was the primary target of the activity. CM CM program activities were targeted on both risk and protective factors. Also, CM-funded programs. ONLY: may indicate whether this is a report on CM Organizing Activities, or CM Support Services. CM Organizing Activities are those activities that directly support the community organizing itself to prevent ATOD use of violence. CM Support Services are those activities that, while not immediately enhancing the prevention-related capabilities of the community, do indirectly support community mobilization. See examples in the instruction booklet for clarification. CM-funded programs should indicate which of the choices was the primary focus of the funded program. f-lrllfi Gf Ur4lIIT4Ylef116'®"s'::_ t.Aoplicabie to 0-kc.1 & C\,I 'r-vpror?i;: !Applicable to Cvl Pro,- ams :�Rit Acailahil:n ?i Dr 2n,. Individual C^ar..Crr'diee 2. Araiiahili:`, or Fiream:> 21. 3onding 3. L.nvs and ',orms cavorni?ie;o ^ :: L ze. Firearms and 22. Healthy 3eiiefs and Clear Stanclani< C.'ime also 1. :lecia 2 . C`1 0;nn:zr1$ J. Trans:non> 3n(i.b1U1!i at: 2�. C.`1 �UaCUII Sy^.it:_$ 6. LUG`. C:MML.n;n Di�.r:.inizannn -. Ex rennlr tf. Fam::\' r:-:orl ,:�'pi..:••'1 jChaliu( 9. Famii` .Van •:Wert P-oh;ec.. H. ir: the 3e1.1.u:r 12. Early and Per.;.,tent An:i.rx ial 3eha:ire 1;. Academic Failure In Eic:rr-n:an St h:. 14. Lack of Coninwlaert io SA on; 15. Alienation. FcitrGiuusnr.>. -uni L.ti u: i Sonrlin. sn Socim 1b. Friends'Lbho Er_aaf;e :n the Prublem 3aha:ior _ 1-. Fakoralir T mard'he Prohivc .3ohavinr 18. Early !r.m,uion of !hc Prub;ym. Rrha•.ior � 19. Cun.;it:awnal =.Ic:urc Initial Date of Service: Fill in the month, date, and year the program began providing services. The initial date of service is defined as the first day that services were provided to Program participants. This definition excludes activities conducted in preparation for providing the service, such as program planning time or organizational meetings. Final Date of Service: Fill in the month, date, and year the program completed services. The Final Date of Service is defined as the last day that services were provided to Program participants Activities happening after that point, such as accounting activities, report writing, or other adminstrative tasks, do not constitute the final date of service as defined here. For both items, write the appropriate numbers in the boxes for clarity if you want(i , optional), and fill in the appropriate ovals. �: : i U f• >ll q � ✓ru � i-. iU4:>It'fi G(>lll. I' � � 1 � C1 011 1 C12 0 2 0 12 I C 2 CD 13 0 3 C 13 _ 3 C 14 C 4 0 14 C 4 C 15 05 C15 C5 C16 C6 016 C6 17 C 7 0 17 7 C 18 0 8 0 18 8 0 19 C9 019 09 C20 010 C10 C21 11 C 22 C 23 CM Organizing Activity ! C 24 CM Support Services (For the,year you only net-d ro marl• in the!,,st coluc-n.I I !For;he :'ear!ou nniv need tc mark in the last column.) �MONNI DAY ! YEAR ! MONTH DAY ? YEAR ! � Ieolo..sz'CDof o _ c 01 cl CD;C)CD;CD M©CAI of oio o©s; 1 CAI 1i" C31 C£j M;(M W es:.S'I 01 CDICmCDOl I '`! Zt!(DMCDCI I � I � _ l . For all of the items on this page, examples of how to complete the items are found in the instruction booklet — TotalNumber of Sessions to Date: Fill in the sessions it took to implement the program. This is the number of times a group met or an event took place during the reporting period. The maximum time a session can last is 24 hours. Total Number of Direct Service Hours: Fill in the total number of direct hours of programs service it took to implement the program. Direct service hours are the hours program staff/volunteers were in actual contact — with program participants. Total Hours of Indirect Service (Optional): If you choose to complete this item, fill in the total number of hours of indirect service it took to implement the program. Indirect hours are those hours program staff/volunteers pent preparing for, or supporting, the actual provision of the services. Basis of Report: It is important to mark whether the information you report is based on an actual count or an estimate. An actual count means that there was a written record of the oroeram's activities(such as a sign-in sheet) on which to base the report An estimate would be reported when the information is based on an informed judgment by program staff. but for which there does not exist any written record. An estimate would be appropriate in a situation where a program came into contact with lots of people, but for which no record of the contact was kept(such as persons coming to a booth at a community fair). If there is no wav to make a reasonable estimate. mark NA and leave the rest of the item blank. - - t um, ,n 87", nm 1"IT-1 177,n,:a — Basis of Report i Basis of Report j I I ! Basis of Report Count C i M C .•^C1 Count C I 'CDCD CD M Count C ICI)(M C^i j IC C_zi I jC J CD(MI C C w=` Estimate M C C C; Estimate C C®C Cj Estimate C_ ZD OCOC NA O I i0 C! NA C CCCCI NA C. ICDCCDMi :CD(MXM' CD©CDC TI ®ocD l "� 1a)C Ccam oocnm XXCDX — 'Important Note: For DASA-funded programs, the report on the Total Number of Sessions and Total Number of Direct Service Hours — must be based on actual counts. IM r tl, L , „ Fill in the unduplicated number of people who participated in the program. Count each person only once.per program. Note that this number will vary tremendously across programs. For example, a small parenting education program might serve 25 participants; a large, mass-media campaign might serve tens of thousands. In all cases, we ask you to indicate whether the number you record is an actual count or is an estimate. I I i i! Basis of Report IC C C C C Ml Actual O I©C C C C CI Estimate O - I©a)CD(M M CD! CCCCCC NA CD — 1©©CDMCMDM = ®®Ci®CD CD I(DOOa"M=1 XXXXXX ®®CID®®® For the next items, the percentage of participants from each group should be marked by filling in the appropriate oval. If no participants were from a specific group, it is not necessary to fill in the 0%oval; a blank will be taken as a 0%. For all items, the ovals should to total be 100%. Also, for all items indicate whether the.number you record is an actual count or is an estimate. 1!4 , , , ^ r_, Basis of Report O Actual C Estimate O N.A. Fill in the race or people who participated in the program. Note that Hispanic status is repored on the next item. 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 30 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to %to 98 to Race 0%6 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 95% 97% 99% 1000% African-Am. O O O C O O O O O C O O C C O O Asian-Am. O O O C C C C C O Native Am. O O C C O O O O O O O C O O O O Anglo O O G C C C C C C C . C -71-:_Q_ =ram Multi-Racial O O O C C O C O O O O O O O O O a or r -"' __ Basis of Report O Actual C Estimate O N.A. -ill in wrietner Participants idenniv as Hispanic or non-Hispanic 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to 96 ro 98 to Ethnicitv 0% 21/6 4% 901. 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 95% 970% 99% 100% ' Hispanic C O O C O O O O O C C O C C O O Non-Hispanic C G C C C C C C C C C C ' C. C . -C ' u wn.n�nr,. - - _ _- . . Basis of Report C, Actual C. Estimate C N.A. �... in;ne aPi;ropna:e perce�:azei br ear arr.. ' -- 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to 96 to 98 to pes 001 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 39% 69% 79% 89% 95% 97% 99% 100% 0-5 C O C `� C C) C C O 0 , 0 6-9 C C:) G C C C C C C C C C C. C . 10-12 O O C C C C C C C C O O O O 13-15 G 16-18 . 0 C C C O O O C O C C C C O O 19-25 O C C C C C C C C C C C C' 26-55 O G C C C C C C O C O C O O O O 56-65 G C C C C C C C C C C C C. , C: -`_M ' 65+ O C C C C C C C C O O C O O G C ., c - — _ Basis of Report C Actual O Estimate C N.A. :;it in:he acc•Ppnate percenta_es'or each item. 1 to 3 to 5 to t0 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to 96 to 98 to Gender M. 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 95% 97% 99% 100% Male O O G O C O C C C C O O Female O O O C C C C C C C C C C ._C. C.. ..t.,, BasisoiReport C Actual C Estimate O N.A. NI in the appropriate percentages for each item. 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to %to 98 to Disability OYe 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 93% 970/6 99% 100% Mobility O O O G C G C C C O O O C O O O Hearing O O O C O C O C C C. C C ::.C,c, C: =C Dev.Disab. O O C C C O C C O O O C O O O O Ment./Psy O O O C C C C C O C C 0 . Vision O O C O O C O O C O C C O C C O Learning O C C O C C C C _ •C _C-CC_ rC— Speech O O O O C G O O O O O O O O O O NONE O O 0 C C C C C C --C.• ,C_. .0 - =C.� important Note. Questions on this page are required or CN-iunded programs only. of Report O Actual O Estimate O N.A. Fill in,"e 2ppmpr'ate percentages for each item. 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 m 70 to 80 to 90 ro 96 to 98 to Source 0% 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 95% 97% 99% 1- Schools o C O O O O O O C G C 0 -- O O O Churches O O O CDC CDC C O lc O " C- 'C; ;' LEA C O o O O C O O O O C C C O C O Social Serv. 0 0 0 0 O C O C C'-:'JCI. :.. ' C . C :CT Com. Prof. O o O O C o o O O O O O O O o C Business O O O C O C C G 'C Invitation O O O O C O O C O O C C O C o o . Friends O O O O C C C C O C .0 . C C .C-=` RF: _ Advertising O O O O O O C C C G C C C C Other G C C C G O C C . .0 n rir,:nG r,r.rr n ,r r r .. Basis of Report O Actual O Estimate o N.A. Ctll li• - vgpr.n"atQ Je•:�rrleet-or each L_.. 1 to 3 to 5 to 10 to 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 90 to 96 to 98 m Source 0% 2% 4% 9% 19% 29% 39% 49% 59% 69% 79% 89% 95% 979/6 99% '10C% CM Project C C C C C v C C C C C O C CM Subcontract C C C C C C C C C C C C C DASA r :: C Com. Hlth. Sfry. Net. O G C C C C C C C C C C C C Oth. Gov. Soc. Serv. School District O G C C C C C C C C C C' C C ._QED' _. ESD OC'— OSPI O C C C C O C C C C C C C C . _C:=Z LE] C C c C C O c Z� O C C C = c City/County Gov. C C C C C C C C C Health Dept C O C• C C C G G C Religious Org. C C C C C C C G Priv. Org. (Non-Prof.) Priv. Org. (Business) C O C C C C C C C C C Service/Civic Org. O C C C C C G C C = C O C Basis of Re r— ort C Actual C Estimate O N.A. Indlcx, xh;ch or;anizanon or erouo too:: urin;are. >eamran. or a minor roie in .;eveiooing the �rnarrm ac:n :x ii;o. indicate hol: rr;m each ur;anizavon pro,.:ded at least x:mr ser%ice ciur:n4 the rab.i;c. Responsibility for went: 6tc 11 to 16to _ Source Primary Secondary Minor 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 21+ CM Project G C C C O C C c C z _ C C CM Subcontract O C C C C C C C C C C . C_c DASH G O C C O C Com. Hlth. Sity. Net. C C C C C C C C C C C - C_JC.. Oth. Gov.Soc.Serv. O O O O C C O C C C' c O G School District O C C C C C C C C C C . C.=C ESD OSPI O C C LEAJ O C C C O O O C O O C City/County Gov. C O C O G C C G C G C c==G Health Dept. ' O O C c C O C C _ O Religious Org. O O c o O C :C C C C G Priv. Org. (Non-Prof.) C O C O C O C C C C O Priv. Org. (Business) O C O C C C C .0 C C C. � O C)Service/Civic Org. 0 0 0 O G O O C C C C Measurement Instrument: Fill in the ovals that corresponds with the type of measurement instrument(s) being used to assess program effectiveness. It's possible that a program may rely on more than one instrument The instrument that is most useful or important to the assessment of program outcome is the Primary measurement instrument. Other instruments, if used, are called Secondary instruments. If only one measurement instrument is being used, that is the Primary instrument. Fill in the oval the Primary in:-rument in the R• column. The remaining, Secondary, instruments should all be marked in the 'S" column. Note that this item does not refer to the timing of the measurement (for example, measurement at baseline and following program completion). More ' detailed descriptions of the different instrument categories are in the expanded instruction booklet RTMI 7 dr General Survey P S ' Youth Survey, Standardized, Multiple Topics Youth Survey, Developed for Program, Multiple Topics �C; Adult Survey, Standardized, Multiple Topics Adult Survey, Developed for Program, Multiple Topics C C • Participant Satisfaction Survey Specialized Survey P S Specialized Survey Measuring Specific Variables) or Risk/Protective Factor(s) Teacher Reports on Students' Behavior C C Parent Surveys on Childrens' Behavior Focus Group Findings C C - • Key Informant Findings _ ,_ • Phone Survey C C Other Specialized Survey Archival Indicator P S CfED/DASAArchival indicator = _ Mobification of CfED/DASA Archival Indicator C School Attendance' School Incident Reports/DisciplinaryActions C C School Grades Other Archival Indicators C C Program Process Indicators P S Program Processes (e.g.,workplans,meeting records, participant attendance data) Measures of Program Goals (e.g.,Number of PSAs,newsletters distributed,number of gunlocks distributed) C C • Program Documentation iwhen serving as program goal-e.g., new policies,school board resolutions) _ _ • Budget Documentation (e.g.,fundraising results) C C Other Process Indicators Z L • Miscellaneous Measures P 5 Direct Observation(s) of Participants — Assets Mapping C C Biological Assays of Drug Use Other C C 3aselire.bleasureraeni 7imir.;,r: Record the month and year the CuIC9rfe indicate the month and year • baseline measurement (i.e., the first measurement of program the outcome measurement (i.e., the final measurement of outcome variables) was collected. Since. for all programs, program outcome variables) was. or will be, collected for this report is returned either at program completion the program. Indicate whether the date is an actual date (DASA-funded), or once the program is underway or an estimate. (CM-funded or jointly funded), only the actual date of the baseline measurement is reported. �.17• III 111:/'." jir!:•Uni Ij'�7 ;1'i: = - "s;.Ueawr�rfvr: ;re• = Actual = Estimate • I O January C July 1997 i January July 1997 • O February C August 1998 = February = August = 1998 • O March September O 1999 March = September = 1999 O April October O 2000 April = October =-2000 O May C November I May = November O June C December j June = December - - - - - Report on whet:^.er the anticipated change from the action statemendprogram activity was realized. (If program is not _ complete lea,,e :his page blank.) To what extent was anticipated change realized by the program? - - i -rili in the ova: under the number that best represents your Judgment. — 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 Minimally Adequately Fully - - Brieflv descri:a :he resuits of vour program and include am data of information VOL «ish to share about you.program. - - - s.. — — Mark ft1 py NCS MUM7470-2 654at GSW P"m in U.S.L PLEASE OO NOT WRrM IN THIS AREA 6296 VIOC�fOC�CCC��C000C000000 EXHIBIT Qualified Service Organization. Agreement Since the Agency is providing services to clients with alcohol/drug abuse problems; and Since said services constitute a drug abuse prevention function as defined by 42 CFR Part 2 ; and Since information received or acquired in connection with the performance of these services may constitute records as defined by 42 CFR Part 2 that :are protected by federal confidentiality laws as set forth in 42 CFR Part 2, IT IS THEREFORE AGREED that the Agency and the Seattle-Ring County Department of Public Health shall enter into a qualified service organization agreement, and herein: 1. Acknowledge that in receiving, storing, processing, or - otherwise dealing with any information from each other about patients/clients in- the project, they are fully bound 'bv the provisions of 42 CFR Part 2 ; 2 . Undertake to resist in judicial proceedings any efforts to obtain access to information pertaining to patients/clients except as permitted by 42 CFR Part 2 . . ...JAI q/Y7/ — KING COUNTY, WASHINGTOEN CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE I ISSUE DATE: :1ROr`ER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. r0&104N11T AFTORD/NC C091f,4Cft' &rINC )HONE COMPANY TT R A NSURED COMPANY R COMPANY R COMPANY 'HONE LETTER D O TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LWTS fR DATE(MM/DU/YY) DATE(uu/DO/YY) GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S I ]COMMERCIAL GENERAL WBIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE S [ ICIAMS MADE,[ ]OCCUR. _ I ]OWNERS&CONTRACTORS PROT. PRODUCTS-COMP/CP AGG. T ",]PER PROJECT I I PER LOCATION: GENERAL AGGREG.S PERSONAL&ADM.INJURY = ] ]DEDUCTIBLE S_I ]OCCURENCE I ICLAIM FIRE DAMAGE S ANY LIMITING ENDORSEMENTS ] ]YES;( ]NO(EXPLAIN YTS'ON BACX) JEO.EXPENSE S AUTOMOBILE WBIUTY COMBINED SINGLE S [ [ANY AUTO LIMIT I ]ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S I ]SCHEDULED AUTOS (Pr Penn) ]HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY S ]NON-OWNED AUTOS (Pc Accdmt) I ;GARAGE LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE S ] ]DEDUCTIBLE S_ I ]EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCECCRE S _ I ]UMBRELLA FORM ACLTE S ]OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS COMPENSATION STATUTORY LWT AM EA04 ACCIDENT S EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY(STOP GAP) GSFASE-PGUCT LIMIT S OTSEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE S OTHER I TI THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE INSURANCE POLICIES LISTED ABOVE.WHERE APPLICABLE HAVE BEEN ENDORSED T AGO KING COUNTY, ITS OFFICERS. II�ALSpuM L Y 0 AGENTTS AS ADDITIONAL INSURE AS RESPECTS THEIR INTEREST IN THE ACTIVITIES Or. WORK PERFORIAED,AND9OR PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY OR ON :Rp II ON 0 N L C I ERTIFlCATE HOLDER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BIFORE THE Division Department EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF THE ISSUING COMPANY MUST PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 45 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. (EXCEPT FOR NON—PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, 10 DAYS), PER RCW 48.18.290. Address SEE REVERSE SIDE EXPLAIN ANY LIMITING ENDORSEMENTS: THE FOLLOWING COVERT CR CC"inITIONS ARE IN EFFECT: � Additional Insured Endorsements Issued f IYES INo Form Numbers: JN/, I Broad Form Liability (if ISO '73 CGL FORM) NYES N/A The �ndersigned will mail to the County 45 days' written notice of cancellation, (except for non—payment, 10 [ YES ys [[ NA Cross liability coverage or severability of interest provision [ ]YES [( NAA Umbrella carrier notified of additional insured status (if applicable) [ YES [[ N/A Srocd form property damage YES NO N/A X, C, U hazards included I [ ]YE [L ll]]N A Contractual iiobiiity coverage applies to this contract subject to the limit of the insurance coverage afforded [ IN/A NEOS Coverage afforded the County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds applies. OYES [ NO COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICIATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. Agency or Brokerage Insurance Company Address Home Office Name of Person to be Contacted Authorized Signature Date NOTE: Authorized signatures may be the agent's if anent has Telephone Number placed insurance throu?h an ogency agreement with the insurer. placed is brokered, authorized signature must be that of an PUP �O REgIIESEOR ��CO -,:;_� � s�rr� � °x,��Pleasefillf�al�applicahl�boxes,�irr. =sr©E�'$�-1999' e '' ^. Originator: Department: „ Phone: d0 Date Sent: ` [ Requested: Explanation_of.work.sequest: 'wee Received: ( h(ra l q � City Attorney Comments: (ice`, K -du l 1 Nc�i. : T r�vicwid �-I'�. Gxi-�-�.vf `E.�I�:ire.� 6eo�CG �n.¢. a�i.J. ►*o Date Forwarded to Originator. =005750 613/96 Y T a Insurance Authority P.O. Box ::c. Renton. WA 96U5' 28-Oct-99 Cert#: 1725 Phone: _5-2----_ - Public Health Seatt'.e & King Count; Attn: Gloria Kemp. Sr. Grants & Contracts Specialist ra.:: 42 '-T' 999 3rd ?.venue. Suite 1200 Seattle,WA 98104-4039 RE: City olKent AS RESPECTS. ATOD GRANT; KC CONTR-ACT NO.D27047D. Evidence of Coveracre The above captioned entity is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority kWCLA), which is a self insured pool of over 97 municipal corporations in the State of Washington. WCIA has at least S l million per occurrence combined single limit of liabiiity coveraze in its self insured layer that may be applicable in the event an incident occurs that is deemed to be attributed to the negligence of the member. WCIA is an Interlocal .Agreement amone municipaiities and liability is completely self funded by the membership. As there is no insurance policy involved and WCLA is not an insurance company, your organization cannot be named as an "additional insured'. Sincerely, Eric B. Larson Assistant Director _ cc: Chris Hills Nancy Mathews cieaer Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 . 1999 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 277TH CORRIDOR LID 351 - NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORM AND SET HEARING DATE - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adoption of Resolution No. setting December 13th as the public hearing date on the formation of LID #351, 277th Street Corridor and that the Public Works/ Planning Committee be the hearing body for that Public Hearing. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and Public Works Director memorandum 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6M PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT November 15, 1999 TO; Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom �. RE: LID #351 277"' Corridor Improvement At the last Council meeting as a follow up to a discussion at the Council workshop, the Council publicly announced that the Public Works/Planning Committee would act as the hearing body per the formation of the above referenced LID and a date and time for same was set. The resolution in the packet just formally re-affirms that action in compliance with LID law. MP9299 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom 00 RE: Proposed L.I.D. 9351 277"' Street Corridor (Auburn Way to Kent Kangley Road) The Public Works Department is proposing the formation of a Local Improvement District for the S. 277 s Street Corridor project. During the past 15 years a number of Environmental Mitigation Agreements (E.M.A.)have been executed by developing properties to participate in the funding of _ the corridor project. Payment for some of these agreements is now due and others will become due in the future. The L.I.D. will provide the property owner the ability to make their payment over a 15-year period of time rather than as one lump sum upon the due date. The L.I.D. will also benefit the City in that the funding from all of the E.M.A.'s will be available now to help fund the project for which most construction is already completed. BACKGROUND The 277 s Corridor has been actively planned since the mid-80's. The valley cities including Auburn, Kent and King County forecasted the need for this arterial corridor as additional growth in the East Hill Soos Creek plateau area required the need for additional arterials to connect the Soos Creek plateau area with the SR-167/I-5 corridors. Environmental review work on the project began in earnest over a decade ago. During this time, a number of new developments were proposed in the area, most of which have been built with residents occupying these developments today. These developments were conditioned on this road improvement project being built within a short period of time to accommodate the additional traffic generated. Following environmental review of the project and permitting through the various State and Federal levels, construction work began on the project several years ago. Because of the size of the project, the project could not be completed in one construction season but is nearing completion at this time. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS The project consists of a new five lane arterial which extends from Auburn Way North (East Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley Road at 116`h Avenue. The project consists of a new bridge crossing over the Green River and a 108`h Avenue S.E.bridge overpass. The five lanes of the project include three climbing lanes on the hillside portion and two descending lanes. Once the arterial reaches the plateau, the roadway shifts to two lanes in each direction plus a two way left turn lane in the center. The project includes street lights along the majority of the project as well as sidewalks on both sides of the arterial, and a bike path from 108th Avenue to the Green River Road area. The bike path will follow a separate route up the hill and will have a separate bridge that has already been constructed. The project also provides a connection to 108`s Avenue SE via two off on ramps at the 108`h Avenue bridge overpass. The work includes a new storm drainage system and landscaping. The City of Auburn is working on a westerly extension of the project from Auburn Way North to SR-167. Although the City of Auburn has nearly completed the design of their project, they are still waiting for full funding of their project. The passage of I-695 has jeopardized their funding. Once completed the Kent portion of the 277th Corridor(Auburn Way North to Kent Kangley Road) will alleviate traffic conditions on Kent Kangley, Canyon Drive and provide East Hill commuters with another route from East Hill to SR-167 and I-5. This first phase of the project is to be opened _ for traffic in late 1999. FUNDING These are various funding sources for this project. AAnroximate Dollars City funds 14.5 million TIB (gas tax) 6.4 million Paid E.M.A.'s 2.1 million Proposed L.I.D. 351 7.0 million Total 30.0 million L.I.D. assessments are based on peak trip generation numbers. In most cases each trip is assessed $1068 adjusted for inflation to the current date. For several special cases the base trip assessment vaned. In accordance with the agreement, each property owner was given notice last year regarding a traffic study to adjust the originally specified peak trip number as shown in the E.M.A. Some properties responded with the study and received an adjusted number. Some residences with one peak trip were able to demonstrate zero peak trips and were deleted from the L.I.D. SUPPORT FOR L.I.D. We did not receive a petition and we did not poll the property owners since the only properties included in the L.I.D. are those with E.M.A. agreements. These properties have agreed not to protest the formation of an L.I.D. Therefore we have 100 percent support for the L.I.D. However, some of the agreements have exceeded their 10-year life. Therefore the 10-year commitment not to protest an L.I.D. has expired and some have not requested an extension of the agreement. These properties could protest the L.I.D. formation. However, without the L.I.D. their payment is due in full. The L.I.D. offers a mechanism for payment over a 15-year period. Some property owners have elected not to be included in the L.I.D. and have paid the E.M.A. obligation in full. Those include in the L.I.D. are those who have apparently chosen the L.I.D. method for payment and those who are still under agreement not to protest the L.I.D. formation. MOTION Recommend adoption of the Resolution of Intent setting a public hearing date on the formation of the L.I.D. for the 358 properties shown on the attached map. NDW99062 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declar its intention to order the construction of the South 272" /277d' Street Corridor improvements project and to create a local improvement district to assess the cost and expense of carrying out those improvements against the properties specially benefited thereby; and notifying all persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their objections at a hearing before the City Council Public Works Committee to be held on December 13, 1999. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, to order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (including the individual descriptions on file with the City Clerk), by the construction of the South 272"d/2771h Street Corridor improvements project, as more fully described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. All of the foregoing improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public Works of the City and may 1 LID 351 -277`h Corridor Improvement be modified by the City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the improvements. SECTION 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the improvements is declared to be $30,000,000.00, and approximately $22,500,000.00 of that cost and expense shall be paid by the City and the balance thereof(approximately$7,500,000.00) shall be home by and assessed against the property specially benefited by the improvements to be included in a local improvement district to be established embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the improvements add to the property. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local improvement district by mailing such notice at least 15 days before the date fixed for public hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the King County Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. This resolution also shall be published in at least two consecutive issues of the official newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing. SECTION 4.. All persons who may desire to comment in support of or object to the improvements are notified to appear and present those comments or objections at a hearing before the City Council Public Works Committee to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in Kent, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on December 13, 2 LID 351 -277'" Corridor Improvement 1999, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the improvements and all comments thereon or objections thereto and for determining the method of payment for the improvements. All persons who may desire to comment thereon or object thereto should appear and present their comments or objections at that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvements in the event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk. SECTION 5. The City's Director of Public Works is directed to submit to the City Council on or prior to December 13, 1999, all data and information required by law to be submitted. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of November, 1999. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of November, 1999. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 LID 351 -277"� Corridor Improvement I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 11999. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CMMaalutmo M351-SaHegDae 4 LID 351 - 277`h Corridor Improvement EXHIBIT `A' L.I.D. 351 S. 277`h Street Corridor Auburn Way to Kent-Kangley Road Specific designated properties within an area generally bounded by the Green River on the west, South 240` Street/James Street on the north, and existing City limits on the east and south. A complete description of each of the designated properties is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. 5 LID 351 -277`h Corridor Improvement EXHIBIT `B' L.I.D. 351 S. 277`h Street Corridor Auburn Way to Kent-Kangley Road The project consists of a new five lane arterial which extends from Auburn Way North (East Valley Highway) eastward up the hill to Kent Kangley Road at 116`h Avenue. The project consists of a new bridge crossing over the Green River and a 108`h Avenue S.E. bridge overpass. The five lanes of the project include three climbing lanes on the hillside portion and two descending lanes. Once the arterial reaches the plateau, the roadway shifts to two lanes in each direction plus a two way left turn lane in the center. The project includes street lights along the majority of the project as well as sidewalks on both sides of the arterial, and a bike path from 108th Avenue to the Green River Road area. The bike path will follow a separate route up the hill and will have a separate bridge that has already been constructed. The project also provides a connection to 1081h Avenue SE via two off/on ramps at the 108`h Avenue bridge overpass. The work includes a new storm drainage system and landscaping. 6 LID 351 -277`h Corridor Improvement Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: NELSON ANNEXATION, 10% PETITION AN-99-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City has received a Notice of Intention to commence annexation proceedings from owners of not less than 10 percent in value of property adjacent to Kent . The proposed 23-acre annexation is located between the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroads and north of S . 277th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, map, policies and strategy and application 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/deny the Nelson annexation Notice of Intention to commence annexation proceedings from owners of not less than 10 percent in value of property adjacent to Kent . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7A CITY OF • .�1L"J Jim White, Nlayor rNvIOTA Planning Department (253) 856-54541FaX(?53) 356-645d James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM November 16, 1999 MEMO TO: Mayor Jim White and City Council members FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director SUBJECT: NELSON ANNEXATION: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FROM OWNERS OF NOT LESS THAN 10% IN VALUE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO KENT (#AN-99-1, KIVA #9902555) MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1999 IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS WEST AT KENT CITY HALL. I. Names of Petitioner Jack Nelson 601 W. Gowe Street Kent, WA 98032 (253) 854-7200 II. Location The proposed annexation is generally located south of Kent and lies between the Burlington Northem-Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads and north of and adjacent to South 2771h Street. 781h Avenue South traverses the easterly portion of the proposed annexation. IJI. Size of the Proposed Annexation The proposed annexation is approximately 23 acres. IV. Backeround Information There are two single-family residential units located on the site. The Nelson annexation area and the area lying to the north and across the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad from the annexation site, is designated by King County as part of the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District (APD). As noted in ^n aL A%E. SO.. / KENT. WASHlF(,TON TELEPHONE i_i_)S96-i2OO Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members Re: Nelson Annexation (AN-99-1, Kiva 99902555) Page 2 section V., King County's land use designation for the Nelson annexation area is Agriculture and the County's implementing zoning designation is A-10 — Agricultural. Kent's land use designation for this area is also agriculture (Kent does not prezone areas in its Potential Annexation area). Recently a number of proposals have been made by King County which are geared toward protecting the APD. These include: ❑ Policies regarding agricultural production districts not being annexed by cities and keeping the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District specifically in unincorporated King County were proposed as part of the 1999 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments in late 1998. ❑ The King County Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) voted on June 16, 1999, to amend the countywide planning policies to not allow cities to annex agricultural production district lands and keep the Lower Green River APD in unincorporated King County. ❑ On October 4, 1999, the King County Council's Housing and Policy Planning Committee voted to support the proposed amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan relating to keeping APDs in unincorporated King County (Kent protested this action based on the belief that the County should not, through legislation, tell cities what areas they can and cannot annex; Kent's protest was not based on the agricultural issues). o The King County Council will hold a public hearing on the APD amendments on November 15, 1999, Kent has maintained an agricultural program since the 1980s wherein large areas within the City have been zoned to retain agriculture. In addition to maintaining agricultural areas within the City, Kent has also applied comprehensive plan agricultural designations in the City's Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). The City Council has created a Development Rights Acquisition fund similar in intent to the County's Purchase of Development Rights funded program. King County has purchased the development rights of numerous parcels of agriculturally designated lands in and around Kent. Development rights have been purchased to the north and north east of the Nelson property and at the northwest comer of South Central Avenue and South 27/'h Street. Development rights have been purchased for most of the property lying east of South Central between the Green River and South 277`h Street. V. King Countv's Comprehensive Plan and Zonins4 Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members Re: Nelson Annexation (AN-99-1, Kiva#9902555) Page 3 King County's Comprehensive Land Use Map's land use designation for the Nelson annexation area is Agriculture. The County's zoning for the Nelson annexation area is A-10-Agricultural, one dwelling unit per acre. VI. Kent's Comprehensive Plan Designation Kent's Comprehensive Plan designation for the Nelson annexation is Agriculture. Kent has not prezoned this area. If the area is annexed to the City, staff will analyze the existing County Comprehensive Plan land use designation to determine its appropriateness for Kent and will make a recommendation to the Land Use and Planning Board to amend Kent's Comprehensive Plan by adding the Nelson area to the plan. The Board will ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council who will make the final decision as to what Comprehensive Land Use designation will be placed on land in the Nelson annexation area and what the implementing zoning designation will be. VII. Impacts to City Operations All City departments were contacted concerning this proposed annexation. Department comments are as follows: FIRE DEPARTMENT The Nelson annexation area is currently served by the Kent Fire Department through a contract with King County Fire District 37. There is limited access to this area due to the bridge weight limits on the bridge that spans the Green River south of South 2591h Street at 781h Avenue South. If this property develops there needs to be strong consideration for built in fire protection. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WATER The Nelson annexation area is served by City water. There is an 8-inch water main in both 781h Avenue South and South 2771h Street. STREETS South 277`h Street lies totally within the City of Auburn and is maintained by Auburn. Auburn's plans for improvements to South 277`h Street include widening to 5 lanes and over passes at both railroads. Street maintenance and vegetation control, upon annexation, would be carried out by Kent along that portion of 781h Avenue South lying within Kent's jurisdiction (about 300 feet). Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members Re: Nelson Annexation (AN-99-1, Kiva #9902555) Page 4 Storm water runoff from South 2771h Street would normally be conveyed to ditches on each side of the street; however, such ditches are not currently visible. SEWER The Nelson annexation is in Kent's sewer service area, but the City does not have sewer lines in the area. METRO will be constructing an interceptor sewer line in the 277`h street right-of-way along the entire length of the Nelson property. It is assumed that for the Nelson property to be serviced by sewers a City extension, at the property owner's expense, would have to be made to the METRO line. VII. Financial Information At the present time the annual revenue from the proposed annexation is expected to be approximately. VIII. Citv Annexation Policies Kent's adopted Annexation Policy and Strategy is attached to this staff report. P.VIM-HIAN98 L DOC .r.i\Y.•y . aJNELSON ANNEXATION AN-99— UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD` .... . --_ . . R n.! M. ..�.�.�.. t � + iQ 4 x , PROPOSED ANNEXATION i 23 ACRES � t qy o'- 11 `-• 1 l �'.i C17 � r• —� BURLINTON-NORTHERN - SNATA FE RAILROAD - — - --- -- A .1. t `` " �•� SOUTH CENTRAL `y — �r ri III r�' KENT'S ANNEXATION POLICY AND STRATEGY POLICIES 1. The City's annexation goal is to be consistent with growth management requirements, which include annexations of the remainder of Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). 2. The City should assist citizens who have expressed a desire to annex to the City. 3. To the extent possible, operating impacts from previous annexations need to be absorbed prior to considering additional annexations. 4. The City shall identify, to the extent possible, the revenue and expenses associated with each annexation. The City shall identify the capital facility impacts associated with each annexation and shall determine costs and a timeline to accomplish such improvements. 5. Levels of service in the existing City shall not be diminished because of new annexations. 6. The City shall require all development within the PAA that desires City utilities to sign no protest agreements and agreements to develop in conformance with Kent's Comprehensive Plan designation and to Kent Public Works standards. 7. The City shall not initiate Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment hearings, for an annexation area, until the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance. 8. After the City Council adopts an annexation ordinance, the actual date the annexation takes place shall coincide with the availability of revenue, to the maximum extent possible, to be received by the City for the annexed area. 9. The preferred method of annexation is through the property owner petition method. However, no protest annexation agreements as well as the election method may from time to time be in the citizen's and City's best interest. 10. The highly developed urban areas within Kent's PAA shall have a high priority for annexation to the City. 11. If the urban-rural line, as adopted by King County adjacent to Kent's PAA, is moved beyond the current line, the City will reexamine the PAA boundary in light of future annexation impacts. ANNEXATION STRATEGIES 1. Kent should finalize the proposed interlocal agreement between Kent and Renton before any annexations are attempted in the PAA lying to the northeast of Kent. 2. The rural areas within Kent's PAA should have a lower annexation priority than the urbanized area lying to the north east of the City. 3. Kent's next annexation should be the urbanized area lying westerly of 108t° Avenue S.E. and between S. E. 200'" Street and S.E. 225"Place. 4. Following the annexation mentioned in strategy 3, the City should explore the possibility of annexing the urbanized area easterly of 108"Avenue S.E., including the Park Orchard area. 5. While strategy number 3 is being carried out, a possible annexation lying north of S.E. 240' Street and extending to approximately S.E. 224t° Street and lying between 1 16i° Avenue S.E. and Soos Creek should be explored. EC� s �cI3 0 1999 r. CITY 0= KL PLANNINIC DEPARTMENT CITY Or�e�vm�11 RECEIVED MAIL TO: City of Kent SEP 2 9 1999 Property Managemel CITY of 220 4th Avenue Southaasiy Kent,WEE.98032 E+ar Attn:Gerald McCauehan NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS NAME OF PETITIONERS —�"4e1 1t1Ez56A1 (?.fd 7z a)) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON We,the undersigned property owners,believe our property constitutes not less than 10% in value,according to the assessed valuation for general taxation,of propeny contiguous to the City of Kent,and do hereby notify you of our intention to commence annexation proceedings seeking the annexation of the following described property to the City of Kent,by circulating a petition therefore among the property owners of said areas. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County,Washington,and described as follows "9/7-/;'C//EU CX////%T F7 AROVF OR ATTACHED DFSCRIPTION NOT TO BE USED FOR I FOAL OR ORDINANCE PI IRPOSFS _ - - WHEREFORE, these initiating panics respectfully request the Honorable Council to set a date for a nmeting with these initiating panics within 60 days from the dale of filing this notice to determine whether the City of Kent sviII accept the proposed annexation. APPROVED AS TO FORM. Tam Ba,baker, Assistant C11 zz^•�eve se wr�r wes+we*o.+eooe swsrnr..eeA.� i.xesv nu ow w.uos uwev.Ton e••v..v.. ti • gin,i PRINT NAME i ADDRESS IN INK LEGAL DESCRIPTION IGN WITH. PROPER SIGNATURE i DATE JLOT, BLOCK i PLAT OR TAX LOT Soh Nelson, 601 W Gowe Se., Tax Lot 4 Kent, WA 98032 jVED I999 c Nancy E. auer, 155 E Community Club Tax Lot 4 pp-, c Road Shelton WA 98585 EMeHr r�� 75.75 red F. NeYson Tax LOt 4 1 26307 97th Ave. So. . Kent, WA 98031 i 'T �n Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: CONTINUATION OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council recently updated its Comprehensive Plan to include the Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent and Federal Way School Districts and further updated the School Impact Fee Schedules for these school districts . The School Impact Fee Program, however, expires on March 31, 2000 . The proposed ordinance would repeal the sunset provisions of the School Impact Fee Program. 3 . EXHIBITS: ordinance 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 W 601� moves, Councilmember Wes" seconds adoption of Ordinance No. 3qgq , repealing the sunset pro- visions of the School Impact Fee Program. DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the Kent City Code by repealing in its entirety the sunset provisions set forth in Section 12.13.150 relating to school impact fees. WHEREAS, the school impact fee program as set forth in Chapter 12.13 Of the Kent City Code terminates on March 31, 2000; and !I WHEREAS, the City Council desires to continue the school impact fee program by repealing the sunset provisions of Chapter 12.13 of the Kent City Code, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 12.13.150 is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: See. 12.13.150. Termination of seheel impoet fees. This ehapter shall be and SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent I 1 Continuation of School Impact Fees jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. I JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: i BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I PASSED: day of , 1999. I APPROVED: day of 1999. PUBLISHED: day of 1999. 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\CbV�o neo ff lnalonSchoolln ffec&c 2 Continuation of School Impact Fees Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: YEAR 2000 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City of Kent ' s 2000 Legislative Agenda is attached. The Agenda communicates the City' s legislative priorities to our elected state officials and provides a workplan for staff tracking and advocacy efforts during the Legislative Session. The document was presented to the City Council during its October 19 workshop. Two rounds of amendments were suggested by City Council and those amendments have been incorporated in this final draft . 3 . EXHIBITS: 2000 Legislative Agenda 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff with Council amendments incorporated (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember k"/ moves, Councilmember seconds to approve and adopt the proposed legislative agenda as the City of Kent ' s Year 2000 Legislative agenda. DISCUSSION: ��- ACTION: 11 ' C/ Council Agenda Item No. 7C City of Kent MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 1999 TO: Kent City Councilmembers FROM: Dena Laurent Government Affairs Manager SUBJECT: 2000 Legislative Agenda Please find attached the 2000 Legislative Agenda. This draft incorporates the two sets of amendments reviewed by you during the past month. Sections changed or added include: low income housing, affordable housing, pipeline safety, domestic violence and photoradar. If you have any questions about this draft, please call me at 251-856-5708. City of Kent 2000 Legislative Agenda Kent's Legislative Agenda is divided into three sections. I. Our 2000 Action Issues These are issues we will actively work on and lobby for during the next session. 2. Our 2000 Position Statement These are issues that are important and merit a support role from the City of Kent. I Our 2000 Tracking List These are issues of concern to Kent which we'll track during the coming session. Draft 2: 11/09/99 1 _ City of Kent 2000 Legislative Agenda Unfunded Mandates All local governments have been impacted by the elimination and reduction of various federal domestic aid programs. Changes at the state level have also affected local government revenue options. Equally important is the growing number of mandates passed from the federal and state governments to local governments without additional resources. Delivering public services requires a strong state-local partnership, and local revenue needs must be recognized when new programs are enacted or if the state revenue system is restructured. The citizens of Washington recognized this necessity in approving section 6 of Initiative 62, codified as RCW 43.135.060, which directs the Legislature to refrain from imposing unfunded mandate requirements on local governments. Years later, in approving Initiative 601 in 1995, the citizens of the state reaffirmed provisions prohibiting the state from passing unfunded mandates onto local jurisdictions. Elected city officials are most qualified to determine which services to provide and the manner in which they should be provided. Kent strongly urges the Legislature to cease imposition of additional financial or operating burdens on cities unless such mandates are compelled by an overriding state interest and are accompanied by financial resources to accommodate the costs of compliance. Economic Development Tools The City of Kent supports efforts to provide additional financing tools for economic development and redevelopment efforts. Economic Development Funding/"Community Revitalization" —Kent will actively support and participate in lobbying efforts to enact legislation that provides additional economic development funding and tools for cities and urban areas. One of these, which has been variously termed the "Urban Stabilization Act" and "Community Revitalization Act," would allow-new sales and excise taxes from new development to be captured, used, and leveraged in local communities. Kent supports this legislative initiative and will be working closely with proponents on it, as well as spin off versions of it that are being proposed by some legislators. Property Tax exemption for Multifamily Housing- Kent supports legislation allowing the City to become eligible for a program that stimulates multi-family housing in downtown cores by providing 10-year property tax exemptions to prospective developers and those interested in rehabilitation of existing dwellings. Currently, eligibility is limited to cities of 100,000 or more or cities which contain the largest population in a given county. With Kent being asked to serve an urban growth area population well in excess of 100,000, the City believes it has a valid reason to be included in the 10-year property tax exemption program, which could be a helpful tool in the ongoing downtown revitalization effort. Initiative 695: Legislative Actions in Response to Vote Regardless of the outcome of the Initiative 695 vote, there are likely to be actions by the 2000 Legislature in response. If I-695 passes, Kent will be urging legislators to redirect and reprioritize funds to protect police and fire funding, public health funding utilized by counties, and transportation investments made through Referendum 49 and previous legislative enactments. If I-695 fails, Kent will support adjustments to the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax that 2 result in more direct use of MVET funds for transportation projects, along with new revenues sources to support critical local programs such as police and fire protection, roads, public health, transit, etc. Such efforts should make a more direct connection between the revenue source and the type of services each source supports. Housine Low-Income Housing-- Kent supports efforts to ensure that an adequate supply of low-income housing is available in the city and in the county. Efforts to assist with creation of low-income housing, such as a proposed $3 recording fee on transactions that is being pushed by the Low- Income Housing Congress, should be moved forward and supported. Further, it is critical for funding sources for low-income housing to be permanent, stable, and dedicated, and acceptable to both governmental jurisdictions as well as the development and real estate community. Finally, low-income housing should be equipped with the same quality and safety features as other single-family and multi-family housing. Affordable Housing- The City of Kent supports efforts to ensure that more residents can afford median-priced homes in King County. Strategies to ensure an adequate supply of affordably- priced homes should include things such as affordable and attractively-built town houses and condominiums that can be made available to first-time buyers; efforts to bring in high-wage jobs that will allow more people to enter the housing market; and adjusting calculations on median- income housing to include town house ownership. The City further believes that affordable housing development will be more attractive and more successful if it is located in such a manner that it is proportionately dispersed through neighborhoods, rather than being clustered in any one area or neighborhood. Buildable Lands— Kent will actively oppose legislation that uses sanctions or overly prescriptive measures to mandate housing targets for cities. The City is currently exceeding its housing targets under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and does not believe that the state needs to mandate any new targets or measures for all cities. There are mechanisms under current law for realtors, builders, and others to challenge whether an individual city is providing enough housing under its GMA plans. Additionally, current analyses of"buildable lands" directed through previous legislative provisions should be allowed to be completed before new legislation is prescribed. Pre-emption of Local Zoning Authority for Manufactured Housing- Kent will actively oppose legislation that pre-empts local zoning authority by attempting to mandate, at a state level, the inclusion of manufactured housing in single-family zones. Such zoning questions should be left to individual communities who best understand the community's needs and issues. Plannine Shoreline Funding— While Kent has recently updated its shoreline management plan, it is updating the shoreline element of its GMA plan. Kent, as will many other cities, will need significant state funding in order to finance the cost of these plan updates. Thus, Kent will 3 actively support a supplemental budget request for shoreline updates that the Department of Ecology has worked on with local government representatives. Water/ESA Water Rights and Basin Planning- Kent will actively work to ensure that legislation addressing water resources and water rights does not impair a municipal utility's ability to perfect its unused or "inchoate" water rights. Perfecting these rights is a key element for the City if it is to address growth that is projected and is, in fact, mandated under GMA. Additionally, the City supports increased funding for the DOE in order to help the agency better and more expeditiously process water right applications, particularly those that have environmentally beneficial features incorporated. Endangered Species Act Issues- The City of Kent has aggressively worked to enhance the natural environment for fisheries, spending more than $10 million over the past 10 years to protect fish habitat. To take further action, cities, along with other in-stream and out-of-stream interests, must have access to significant sources of new funding to undertake ESA projects and to balance environmental stewardship with economic vitality. To address these issues, Kent supports: ✓ direct state and federal grants to assist cities located in ESA listing territory in funding projects, ensuring efforts are scientifically sound, protecting and acquiring habitat, and finalizing "early-action" plans for threatened and actual ESA listings of fish; ✓ broad based city involvement in financing and decision-making regarding the policies, plans and projects developed to respond to the ESA at a local, regional and state level; ✓ ongoing.evaluations of the actions of federal, state and local efforts to address ESA issues, to determine whether actions are resulting in salmon recovery, and that economic and cost-benefit issues are considered in such recovery efforts. ✓ Enhanced funding for ESA enforcement, both to undertake inspections and to provide additional training for compliance officers. Local enforcement is a key part of the State's Salmon Recovery Strategy and efforts to demonstrate"certainty" for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) —but such enforcement must be properly funded. Infrastructure FundinE and Telecommunications Local Government Infrastructure Funding- Kent will actively support efforts to increase and enhance funding for local government infrastructure needs, on the heels of a legislatively- directed study which shows an infrastructure funding gap of at least $3.05 billion. State Planning and the Impacts of Growth- Kent supports development of a State strategic plan to ensure state agency consistency with locally adopted GMA plans and regulations. The plan should include a balanced study of growth impacts, and should take advantage of the findings of the infrastructure needs analysis completed in June 1999. The study should also identify those policies and practices that are counter to the goals of growth management and identify strategies for mitigating these conflicts. Additionally, Kent supports legislation to specify that local government has first right of refusal on abandoned transportation rights-of-way, and incentives for use of public transit and ridesharing. 4 Freight Mobility Projects and Funding- Kent will actively pursue, through the State Legislature, the State's Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), and the regional "FAST Corridor" program, additional funding and inclusion of projects to improve the movement of rail and truck freight. Projects to address at-grade crossings on 212" Street and Willis Street, as well as the 224"' Street corridor project, are examples of freight improvement initiatives on the City's list. Right of Way for Telecommunications Providers— Kent will support legislative proposals to increase petmining certainty for telecommunications providers who propose to use public rights of way, as long as proper levels of compensation are provided for the use and degradation of such right of way, and provided telecommunications providers relocate to accommodate local projects in the right-of-way at no cost to the municipality. Parks and the Arts $5 Million Supplemental Funding for WWRP—Kent will actively support and lobby for additional funding in the Year 2000 supplemental budget that is being requested for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). The $5 million supplemental budget request would provide additional funding to help two projects in the City —the Clark Lake and Valley Floor acquisitions—move forward. Capital Funding for Arts Center Project—Kent will work to educate legislators on the statewide importance of its proposed arts center, and seek state capital funding to assist with the project. The addition of an arts center in Kent makes it possible for touring theater groups which would otherwise bypass the State to come to the Puget Sound and complete a suburban touring circuit. In addition to seeking private and King County funding for this project and evaluating the best way in which to generate local funding, Kent believes that a State contribution to the project is critical and reasonable. Welfare Reform and Domestic Violence Welfare Reform- Kent supports legislative action to successfully implement welfare reform programs in the state. Kent also supports full funding of human service programs including ancillary programs, such as childcare (including care for ill children) and public transportation, that are key to the success of those moving from welfare to work. Such legislative action should ensure appropriate local government input into development of any new processes to assist or support low income, high need populations. Domestic Violence- Kent supports refinements to current domestic violence law which will afford additional protection to victims, enable improved enforcement and prosecution of domestic violence cases, provide additional housing and shelter for domestic violence victims and their children, and provide domestic violence victims with access to welfare programs. Kent also supports creating privilege for communications between victims of domestic violence and ^ community-based victims' advocates (outside of prosecution efforts). 5 Legal Issues and Public Safety Liability Immunity for pre-trial and post-trial supervision of misdemeanor offenders- Kent will actively support proposed legislation to remedy a recent State Supreme Court decision (the Hertog case) on liability for local governments in the case of offenders who are in a pre-trial supervision setting. Cities that operate municipal courts, and counties which operate district and superior courts, cannot be held liable for actions over which they have little control or prior knowledge. Exposing local governments to such liability also will leave elected officials questioning whether probation or home detention programs are cost-effective —and, these decisions could impact jail overcrowding which is already occurring in cities such as Kent. Court Operations and "Certification" Rule-Making- Kent will actively oppose draft rule- makings by the State Supreme Court and the Office for the Administrator of the Courts (OAC) which seek to prescribe how court operations will be conducted, and require "certification" standards to be established and met. Both of these draft rules are a pre-emption of local authority, and the certification rule appears to usurp existing legislative authority that exists in state statute, Photo Radar- The City of Kent supports local-option legislation being developed for the 2000 session of the Legislature which would explicitly provide cities and counties the authority to use photo radar as a tool to ensure safer speeds on local streets; safer red-light stops and railroad crossings, etc. While one jurisdiction in our state (Clark County, in Southwest Washington) is currently using photo radar, authority to legally use this tool needs to be clarified. A coalition including the Washington Traffic Safety Commission and the Washington Sheriffs and Police Chiefs attempted to so during the 1999 session with House Bill 1185, and will attempt to do so again in the 2000 session. Pipeline Safety- The City of Kent supports legislative initiatives that will strive to ensure a safer environment for cross-state pipeline operations which impact cities and their communities. Kent's citizens who have Olympic Pipeline routes in or near their neighborhoods should be provided with the most assurance possible that pipelines will be inspected regularly, tested, operations plans reviewed, etc. Legislative efforts such as a state office of pipeline safety, or a stepped-up role for the existing Energy Facilities Siting Commission, are worthy of further evaluation and support. 6 2000 Position Statement The City of Kent supports state legislative efforts to encourage cost-effective regional policy planning and delivery of government services, balanced by local program implementation. These efforts should focus on eliminating duplicative services and preserving local control over service delivery. Kent also supports legislation that enhances local flexibility to address issues of local concern. Kent opposes legislation that mandates increased local costs without a corresponding increase in funding or decrease in mandated responsibility, as spelled out in Initiative 601. Additionally, the City opposes legislation that results in a pre-emption of local authority. The Fiscal Health of Local Government 1. Local Government Revenue Preservation- Kent supports the provision and protection of adequate and flexible local government revenue sources needed to fund basic essential services. In the past several years, several local government revenue sources have been altered and/or reduced in their application or revenue generation capacity. The State should preserve local government revenue sources to ensure essential services can be delivered to our community. 2. Fiscal Notes- The process of preparing local government fiscal impact analyses (fiscal notes) for the Legislature is, at best, incomplete. Yet, legislators depend on these fiscal notes to gauge the impact of measures on local government finances. Kent supports efforts to enhance the content and accuracy of fiscal notes which report the impact of legislation on cities. The notes should include fiscal impact and analysis not just of originating bills but also of amendments. They should also detail any disproportionate impact on specific cities, regions or types of local governments. 3. Maintain State Shared Revenues to Support Local Government Services- Kent supports maintenance of state shared revenues that support local government programs including transit and transportation funding for cities, criminal justice and public health. 4. DCTED funding for cities with economic development offices —Kent will evaluate ways in which the state's current method of providing economic development monies to Economic Development Councils (EDCs) could be updated and expanded to also include cities which have established economic development offices and initiatives of their own. General Local Government/Home Rule 1. Home Rule- The City of Kent strongly supports the adoption of a constitutional home rule amendment that would guarantee decision-making authority for local matters at the local level. Kent also urges the Legislature to oppose proposals to pre-empt local government control and support opportunities to delegate decision-making to the local level. 2. City/School District Partnerships- Kent supports any initiatives that will minimize barriers to cities and other local governments partnering with school districts to provide community 7 programs, and to jointly develop school district land. Kent also supports state programs that recognize city/school district cooperative efforts to address local youth issues. 3. Recognition of and Respect for Diversity- The City of Kent is committed to upholding the basic principles and values on which our nation was founded including respect for individual rights and tolerance of differences. The City supports aggressive protection of the civil liberties of all Washington citizens. 4. Liability- Kent supports adoption of a certificate of merit process to validate negligence claims. Kent supports efforts to exempt cities from joint and severable liability. Kent supports the provision of civil liability immunity to employers who disclose in good faith information about a former or current employee's job performance. Kent also supports removal of the current prohibition against introduction of evidence that a plaintiffs failure to wear a seat belt contributes to the plaintiff's injuries. 5. Personnel Administration- The City supports civil service reform for police officers and fire fighters that allows cities to streamline hiring processes, diversify workforces, and recruit, retain, discipline and reward employees. 6. Pensions Systems- Kent supports adequate and financially sound pension systems and opposes any attempt to shift state financial responsibility for employee pensions to cities and towns. 7. Clarifying the authority of cities to direct placement of mini-casinos through local zoning— Kent will support legislation to provide cities with more direct authority, and to clarify existing authority, to direct the location of mini-casinos through their zoning codes. Planning, Land Use and Environment 1. City Land Use Planning/GMA/SMA- Kent supports locally-based, collaborative planning under the Growth Management Act. Any new planning and/or regulatory mandates should be fully funded by the Legislature. With regard to GMA, Kent supports: ✓ Legislative monitoring of the efforts of state and local agencies, ✓ clarification of the responsibilities of the state in developing policies and capital plans in conformance with locally adopted comprehensive plans, assuring funding adequacy to provide adequate infrastructure, urban services, housing and employment opportunities within urban growth areas, and ✓ legislation that coordinates permitting under the GMA, the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shorelines Management Act. 2. Additional Funding for Buildable Lands Inventories —Kent will support efforts to obtain additional funding for buildable lands inventories mandated by the state. Governor Locke had acknowledged the lack of funding for these inventories when they were first required for the state's six largest counties and the cities within them, and adequate funding never has been provided. 8 3. Annexation Hearing Requirements—Kent will seek legislative vehicles to remedy a disparity in law between hearing requirements for zoning areas inside a city and those for zoning urban growth area lands that are to be annexed at some future point. Current law under GMA statutes requires one hearing for the zoning changes inside a city, yet calls for at least three hearings for zoning changes within a to-be-annexed area. 4. Special District Assumptions- Kent supports current provisions governing city assumptions of water/sewer districts. 5. TMDL Standards and Funding—Kent supports state funding to allow the State Department of Ecology (DOE) to finalize and set "Total Maximum Daily Load" standards for how much wastewater should be discharged into river bodies. Providing funding, and allowing such standards to be finalized, is a key to providing certainty for watershed management plans. Electric Utility Deregulation 1. Electric Deregulation- Kent supports preservation of low power rates to foster a growing economy. Kent supports state and local taxing authority on the use of electricity, whether the provider is in or out of the state. Specifically, Kent supports a solution similar to the model used by the Legislature to ensure a level playing field during deregulation of the _ natural gas industry. Overall, any industry deregulation should be guided by the following principles. ✓ Local governments should retain the authority to manage industry facilities within the public right-of-way and the authority to tax the utility providers. ✓ Electricity service should be available to customers at affordable prices, including a broad range of choice in electricity service and pricing options. ✓ The long-term safety, integrity, reliability and quality of the bulk electric system and retail electricity service should not be jeopardized. ✓ The public should maintain a voice in the industry's regulatory process and the interests of customers should continue to be balanced with the opportunity for shareholders to earn fair returns. 9 Issues to Track 1. De-merger of DCTED—Kent supports the proposed de-merger of the State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development into separate divisions overseeing trade/economic development and community development/local government. 2. False Claims Act, Civil Rights Act—Kent likely will oppose legislative vehicles such as the False Claims Act and Civil Rights Act which, while well-intentioned, are unnecessary and may pre-empt local authority while imposing new costs and burdens on cities. 3. Public Works Contracts- Kent supports changes to make these contracts more flexible, and will oppose legislative initiatives which add costs, requirements, complexity. and liability to the public works contracting process. 4. LEOFF II pensions for firefighters and police—The City of Kent will closely monitor a proposal that appeared in 1999, and likely will reappear in the 2000 Legislature, to provide enhanced pension benefits for LEOFF II police and firefighter retirement plans. 5. Regionalization of Law Enforcement-Study- Kent will monitor efforts of the law enforcement community to move for a regionalization of law enforcement services. _ 6. Health Insurance Access for Retired Public Employees — Kent supports the concept of health insurance access for public employees who have retired but not yet reached the age where they qualify for Medicare. However, such access must be designed in a way that is revenue-neutral for cities and provides them time to determine how to address the access issue in a fair and cost-effective manner. The City had concerns with last year's Substitute Senate Bill 5607 and will be closely tracking this year's discussions. 7. "Ergonomics" Rule— Kent will be carefully analyzing and evaluating a draft rule- making on ergonomics being put out later this year by the State Department of Labor and Industries. The rule, which will address issues in connection with prevention of muscular and skeletal injuries and disorders, is likely to involve new requirements, training activities, equipment evaluations, and costs for cities. Whether these requirements and costs can be managed, or are significant and cannot be easily managed and accommodated, will play a key role in determining Kent's level of activity in responding to the rule making. 10 J,SNAPSR0iJ;,-0F:C1TT 0F`1CP-FrZQQ0iLEGIS1iA ��,A�GENDA "ACITVK'?"LIST,,, • Assurance that the Legislature will protect transportation, police and fire, public health, and transit funding in a post Initiative 695 environment • Protection of existing water rights • Additional funding needs for ESA projects, compliance, enforcement, etc. • Freight Mobility project funding, inclusion of City projects; • WWRP $5 million supplemental budget request—would help ensure inclusion of two Kent projects on the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program capital funding list. • Economic Development funding tools — Such as the recent "Community Revitalization Act" to help urban areas capture sales and excise taxes. • State Capital Budget funding for the planned arts center facility in Kent. • Supplemental budget funding enhancement for shoreline rules compliance • Urging that the Legislature refrain from imposing unfunded mandates on local governments. • Opposing buildable lands legislation that would impose sanctions or overly prescriptive housing density targets and measures, particularly when cities such as Kent are already meeting and exceeding housing goals. • Liability immunity for pre-trial supervision, as well as programs such as probation and home detention, which are undertaken by city- and county-operated municipal, district, and superior courts. • Opposition to any efforts to pre-empt local zoning authority for location of mobile homes. • Support for enhanced state funding to recognize a local government infrastructure funding deficit of at least $33.05 billion. • Opposition to draft rules attempting to overly prescribe day-to-day court operations and require courts to meet ill-defined "certification" standards. • Support City compensation by telecommunication companies for the use and degradation of the right of way, and relocation of telecommunication facilities to accommodate local projects in the right-of-way at no cost to the municipality. � B i Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: NO PARKING ZONE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council has previously esta- blished no parking zones as set forth in Section 9 . 38 . 020 of the Kent City Code. This Code currently has provisions which are repetitive and out of date . The proposed ordinance establishes a new Section 9 . 38 . 020 removing the repetitive provisions and adding additional no parking zones necessary for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Works/PlanningCommittee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: JI Councilmember wW�''�'" moves, Councilmember _seconds adoption of Ordinance No. 3j 5 , establishing a new no parking zone code. DISCUSSION: ACTION:�C Council Agenda Item No. 7D ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Section 9.38.020 of the Kent City Code in its entirety and enacting a new Section 9.38.020 entitled "No parking zones" relating to no parking zones within the City. WHEREAS, the City Council has established no parking zones within the City of Kent as authorized by state law; and WHEREAS, the current code has provisions which are repetitive and, therefore, are not necessary; and WHEREAS, additional no parking zones are necessary for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City Code to update its no parking zones; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.38.020 of the Kent City Code entitled"No parking zones" is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 2. A new section, Section 9.38.020, entitled "No parking j 1 No Parking Zones zones" is hereby added to the Kent City Code as follows: Sec. 9.38.020. No parking zones. At such time as the traffic engineer shall place the appropriate sign or signs, it shall be illegal to park any motor vehicle or other vehicle, as those terms are defined in Chapter 46.04 of the Revised Code of Washington, at any time upon and on either side of, unless otherwise indicated, the following roadways or portions thereof: 1. Meeker Street: from Sixth Avenue South to the Kent-Des Moines Road. i 2. East Gowe Street: from Railroad Avenue to Central Avenue (south side only) and from Central Avenue to Kennebeck Avenue (both sides). 3. SR 99 (Pacific Highway South): from Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516)to the intersection of South 272nd Street. 4. Pioneer Street: from one hundred seventy(170) feet west of the centerline of State Avenue to the centerline of State Avenue (south side only). From Central Avenue to two hundred (200) feet east of Central Avenue (north side only). I 5. East Titus Street: I a. From East Gowe Street to a point one hundred twenty (120) feet southwest to the centerline of Reiten Road (southeast side only). b. From a point one hundred twenty (120) feet southwest of the centerline of Reiten Road to Smith Street. 6. 30`h Avenue South: from Kent-Des Moines Road to South 240`h Street. 7. South 240d' Street: from 27`h Avenue South to I-5. 8. West Cloudy Street: from North 5`h Avenue to North 4`h Avenue. 9. 101't Avenue Southeast: from the intersection of Southeast 256`h to the intersection of South 260`h Street. 10. Lincoln Avenue: from the intersection of Meeker Street to the intersection of James Street. 11. Sam Street: from West Valley Highway (Washington Avenue) to five hundred (500) feet east of West Valley Highway. 12. Smith Street: from 64`h Avenue South to Jason Avenue. 2 No Parking Zones 13. 97d' Place South: from the intersection of Canyon Drive to the intersection of Crow Road. 14. 77`h Avenue: from the intersection of South 212`h Street to the end of 771h Avenue South. 15. Southeast 26&Street: from 97`h Place South to 108`h Avenue Southeast. 16. 108d'Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 260`h Street to Kent-Kan.-ley Road (SR 516). 17. 701h/72nd Avenue South: from South 2281h Street to 43`d Avenue South (South 108`h Street). 18. Reith Road/South 2591h Place/South 260`h Street: from SR 99 to SR 516 (Kent-Des Moines Road). 19. South 190`h Street: from 72"d Avenue South to 62"d Avenue South. 20. South 194th Street: from 66`h Avenue South to Russell Road. 21. South 196`h Street: from SR 167to Orillia Road. 22 62"d Avenue South: from South 196`h Street to South 212`h Street. 23. 66`h Avenue South: from South 196`h Street to South 1901h Street. 24. 80`h Avenue South: from South 208`h Street to South 180`h Street (43`d Avenue South). 25. 80`h Place South: from South 84`h Avenue to 80`h Avenue South. 26. 58`h Place South: from South 194`h Street to South 196`h Street. 27. South 1881h Street: from end of street to 801h Place South. 28. South 190`h Street: from end of street to 80`h Avenue South. 29. South 192"d Street: from end of street to 84`h Avenue South to SR 167. 30. South 194`h Street: from end of street to 84`h Avenue South. 31. South 208`h Street: from Burlington Northern railroad tracks to 96`h Avenue South. 32. South 2001h Street: from 801h Avenue South to 84`h Avenue South. 33. South 2W' Street: from 80'h Avenue South to Burlington Northern railroad tracks. 3 No Parking Zones 34. 8 1" Avenue South: from South 2001h Street to South 196`h Street. 35. South 218`h Street: from 84`h Avenue South to SR 167. 36. South 222nd Street: from Burlington Northern railroad tracks to SR 167. 37. South 2281h Street: from Russell Road to 83`d Avenue South. 38. 83`d Avenue South: from South 224`h Street to south 228`h Street. 39. 88`h Avenue South: from James Street to South 218`h Street. 40. South 224`h Street: from 83`d Avenue South to SR 167. 41. 109`h Avenue Southeast: from Southeast 248`h Street to Southeast 256`h Street. 42. Russell Road: from the Green River to South 196`h Street. 43. 64`h Avenue: from the Green River to South 190`h Street. 44. 74`h Avenue South: from Willis Street to South 259`h Street. I, 45. South 259`h Street: from 74`h Avenue to east city limits. 46. James Street: from Russell Road to 148`h Avenue South. 47. South 216`h Street: from 64`h Avenue South to 72"d Avenue South. 48. South 2201h Street: from West Valley Highway(SR 181) to 72"d Avenue South. lil 49. 1001h Avenue South: from the north city limits to South 2481h Street. 50. Maple Street: from Woodland Way to Garfield Avenue south side. 51. 84`h Avenue South/East Valley Highway/Central Avenue: from the intersection of 1801h Avenue South to the Green River Bridge. 52. 104`h Avenue Southeast: from a point one hundred (100) feet north of Southeast 236`h Street to the intersection of Southeast 272d Street. 53. Fourth Avenue South: from the intersection of Willis Street to the intersection of South 228`h Street. 54. 76`h Avenue South: from the intersection of South 228`h Street to the intersection of South 212`h Street. 55. Military Road: from the intersection of South 229d' Street to the intersection of South 277'h Street. 4 No Parking Zones i. 56. Canyon Drive: from the intersection of Hazel Avenue to the intersection of 101s` Avenue Southeast. 57, Southeast 256`h Street: from the intersection of 101" Avenue Southeast to the intersection of 148`h Avenue Southeast, 58. 54`h Avenue South: from the intersection of South 226`h Street to the intersection of South 228`h Street. 59. South 226`h Street: from the intersection of 54`h Avenue South to the intersection of 64`h Avenue South. 60. South 212`h Street: from the west city limits to the east city limits. 61. South 204`h Street: from the intersection of West Valley Highway to the intersection of 72"d Avenue South. 62. Lakeside Boulevard West: from the intersection of James Street to the (� intersecting (intersection) of South 228`h Street. 63. Lakeside Boulevard East: from the intersection of James Street to the intersecting (intersection) of South 228`h Street. 64. South 236`h Street: from the intersection of Lakeside Boulevard East to the intersection of 64`h Avenue South. 65. Landing Way: from the intersection of 64`h Avenue South to the intersection of West Valley Highway. 66. South 234`h Street: from the intersection of West Valley Highway to the end of the street. I 67. Sixth Avenue South: from the intersection of South 228`h Street to the end of the street. 68. Second Avenue South: from the intersection of South 228`h Street to the end of the street. 69. South 216`h Street: from the intersection of 84`h Avenue South to South 212`h Street. 70. 94`h Avenue South: from the intersection of James Street to the intersection of Canyon Drive. 5 No Parking Zones I I 71. South Central Place: from the intersection of South 266`h Street to the end of the street. 72. Willis Street: from the intersection of Fourth Avenue South to the intersection of Central Avenue. 73. 152"d Way Southeast: from the intersection of Southeast 266`h Street to the intersection of Southeast 272"d Street(SR 516) (east side only), and from Southeast 266`h Street to the Boat Ramp Traffic Signal (west side only). 74. Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516): from the intersection of Southeast 256`h Street to the intersection of SR 18. 75. 124`h Avenue Southeast: from the intersection of Southeast 248`h Street to the intersection of Southeast 288`h Street. 76. 132"d Avenue Southeast: from the intersection of Southeast 236`h Place to the intersection of Southeast 288`h Street. I 77. 144`h Avenue Southeast: from the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road(SR 516) to the intersection of Southeast 288`h Street. 78. 152"d Avenue Southeast (152"d Way Southeast): from the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) to the intersection of Southeast 282"d Place. 79. Lake Fenwick Road: from the intersection of Reith Road to South 272"d Street. 80. 108`h Avenue Southeast: from the end of the road to Southeast 236`h Street. 81. 110`h Avenue Southeast: from the intersection of Southeast 270`h Street to the end of the road. 82. 1" Avenue South: from the intersection of James Street to the end of the road (east side only). 83. 42nd Avenue South: from Reith Road to South 260`h Street. 84. Frager Road: from Meeker Street to South 204`h Street. 85. West Valley Highway/SR 181/ Washington Avenue: from South 277`h j Street to South 180`h Street (43`d Avenue). i 86. South 188`h Street: from 72"d Avenue South to West Valley Highway. 6 No Parking Zones 87. 116`h Avenue Southeast: from Kent-Kangley Road (SR 516) to Southeast 2771h Place. SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY j� j 7 No Parking Zones PASSED: day of 11999. APPROVED; day of , 1999. PUBLISHED: day of , 1999. 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 Citv of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\C'LV WrdmmcvNoParkmgZone doc j I it 8 No Parking Zones ` Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: WATER RATE ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of an ordinance which will increase the City' s water rate fees . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 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: n Councilmember .al-K—moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of Ordinance No . 3 qSL authorizing an increase in the City' s water rate fees, aj Ay /ktlr d VA -KQ VVAAI J-OUtl� DISCUSSION: t ' ACTION: n/O Council Agenda V Item No. 7E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works and Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstroma) RE: Water Rate Increase As you're aware we have been working for years with Tacoma, Seattle, Covington Water District, and Lakehaven Utility District on developing the final contract language per the implementation and operation of Tacoma's Second Supply Project. As noted in the attached "Joint Declaration" this hurdle has now been successfully completed. The official signing is anticipated to occur some time in February once the necessary formal approvals have been obtained. Council approval thereof will be _ sought once all the editorial corrections have been accomplished. With this accomplished, the last major hurdle to implementing this project is the securing of the incidental take permit under ESA. This permit is predicated upon the Feds (National Marine Fisheries Service) approving Tacoma's Habitat Conservation Plan for the watershed. It is anticipated that said permit would be issued in February. Our share of this project is estimated to cost $28,000,000. As Council is fully aware this is the only new water supply project in the Puget Sound region or possibly the state on the verge of being implemented. As Council is also fully aware it is Kent's next and also the only near term additional water supply source available to the City. It is conceivable that water could be available therefrom by 2002. Without this project our only option is a moratorimn on all new water service connections. As noted our share, which is one ninth of the total project cost, is approximately $28,000,000. To finance it a water rate increase is required. The size of said rate is approximately 38.2%. The last time the City increased its water rate was 1984 and in fact the City lowered its rate in 1992 by 24% in conjunction with the implementation of a street utility. A comparison of the new rates to other surrounding purveyors is shown in the attached table. Also attached is a table which shows the new rates and their impact on typical users. In addition to the 38.2% change we are proposing to incorporate the 1% utility tax into the rate itself. Presently it is on the customer's bill as a separate item into the rate itself. We are proposing this because the balance of the City's utility tax is already incorporated into the rate and this would clean it up accounting wise. It is the Public Works Department recommendation that the rate increase be approved. Further we have taken the liberty to place the adoption of the ordinance on your November 16`h Council agenda. We did so because an ordinance requires 30-day period after passage before it become affective and the new rates must be in effect prior to January 1" 2000. It should be noted this rate increase was anticipated per the preparation of the 2000 budget and is not related to the passage of I-695. Actually we anticipated a two step increase, 21% in 2000 and 17.2% in 2001. I-695 only forced us to compress it into the first year to eliminate any legal ambiguity. MOTION: Option # 1 -Recommend to full Council adoption of the ordinance increasing the water rate as proposed above. Option #2- Recommend to full Council to institute a moratorium on the issuance of all new water service connections and direct the Citv Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance for same. NIP8499 ! \ ) ! ) ( \\ ` l \ 10 | , ) $ ! (! [ ! ! } ^ ) Ke 3 : ! }\21 \ 2 ^ ` }�k {{/ } 2 ) |! . , - - k \ � � \\ \ \{ (76 j \ {{ \ ` k | § \ . | ; && . \\ � \ i .| » > § Cc ; ! ! » § § ] ! § ! - ; , ! E ! £ t • 7k k2 ! E ! £ ! j6 ) \ � - | ! (II & af [ § i Impact of Proposed User Charges On Selected Customers Monthly Cost to users, dollars Class and Individual Customer Existing Proposed % Change Winter/Summer Winter/Summer Residential Customers Inside Kent With very low consumption; e.g. one- person household, limited yard uses. '/a" meter, 300 cu ft/month 5.92/7.12 7.42/9.10 25/28 With low to moderate consumption; e.g., occupants away from home much of the time. '/4" meter, 500 cu ft/month 8.20/10.40 10.90/13.70 30l32 With average consumption; e.g., small family with yard uses. 1/4" meter, 800 cu ft/month 12.12/15.32 16.12/20.60 33/34 With high consumption; e.g., large residence irrigation system 1-1/2" meter 1,600 cu ft/month 23.14/29.54 31.14/40.10 35/36 Commercial Customers Inside Kent With very low consumption; e.g., small store with no special water uses. '/4" meter, 900 cu ft/month 13.36/16.96 17.86/22.90 34/35 With low consumption; e.g., service station. I" meter, 2,500 cu ft/month 33.45/43.45 45.95/59.95 37/38 With medium consumption; e.g., large apartment building. 2" meter, 12,000 cu ft/month 152.80/200.80 212.80/280.00 39/39 With high consumption; e.g., very large office building. 4" meter, 25,000 cu ft/month 326.80/426.80 451.80/591.80 3 8/3 9 With very high use; e.g., major industry 8" meter, 750,000 cu ft/month 9,337.59/12,337.59 13,087.59/17,287.59 40/40 8" meter, 1,500,000 cu ft/month 18,63759/24,637.59 26,137.59/34,537.59 40/40 JOINT DECLARATION OF THE THE CITY OF TACOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER DIVISION THE CITY OF KENT COVINGTON WATER DISTRICT LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES The undersigned parties have been engaged for some time in the negotiation of an agreement that would provide for the design, financing, construction and operation of the proposed Second Supply Project. The undersigned parties have committed substantial resources to this effort because of the substantial environmental, conservation, recreational, fish, water supply and reliability benefits that the Second Supply Project will make available to areas of Pierce and King Counties, and the degree to which it will foster regional cooperation on a wide array of water related issues. The undersigned utilities have, after careful examination and due consideration, concluded that the attached Project Agreement is a full and complete agreement and, with the exception of editorial corrections, is ready for submission to and consideration by their respective governing bodies substantially in the form as attached hereto. Dated the 3rd day of November, 1999. City of Tacoma City of Kent Department of Public Utilities Water Division Lakehaven Utility District Covington Water District I City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities 1 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 7.02 of the Kent City Code and increasing temporary and permanent water rates within and outside the city limits. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 7.02.180 of the Kent City Code is amended to increase temporary water use rates as follq+tvs: See. 7.02.180 Temporary watq`r meters. A. When water service is required for a specific short-term duration, upon approval of the director of public works, a temporary water meter may be obtained from the water utility. B. Such meters shall only be used for a designated project and shall be promptly returned to the water utility upon completion of the project or at the end of sixty(60) days, whichever comes first. Thy meters are to be returned in the same condition as when rented, and the user shall be helld responsible for any damage thereto including paying all repair or replacement costs/While in the user's possession, the user shall be solely responsible I for the meter and as such should it be lost or stolen, the user shall pay the water utility the r cost of its replacement. 1 Water Rate Fee C. The director of public works shall require that a cash bond be deposited with the city prior to receipt of a temporary meter. The amount of the bond shall equal the replacement cost of the respective meter. Upon return of the meter, the payment of all outstanding charges including any meter repair or replacement costs, the cash bond shall be released back to the user. I D. Temporary meters may be moved from one(1)hydrant to another within the same jproject provided the water utility is notified in advance of the proposed relocation and that hydrant wrenches are used to make all connections and disconnections. E. The charge for water used through the temporary meter shall be at a rate of one dollar and thirty-three cents ($1.33) per one hundred (100) cubic feet, plus a meter charge as€ellewsi established in subsections E.1 and 2 below. Effective December 31, 1999, the charge for water used through the temporary meter shall be at a rate of two dollars and thirty cents ($2 30) per one hundred (100) cubic feet, plus a meter charge as established in subsections E.1 and 2 below. 1. Up to one and one-half(1 1/2) inch meter, fifty dollars ($50); 2. Two (2) inch and larger meter, one hundred dollars ($100). Payment shall be made in full upon return of the meter. If a meter is lost or stolen, payment for water used shall be based on an estimate made by the director of public works. SECTION 2. Section 7.02.300 of the Kent City Code is amended to increase water rates within the City as follows: Sec. 7.02.300 Water rates within the city. A. The monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one dollar and twenty-four cents ($1.24) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly rate is one dollar and sixty-four cents (51.64) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter. Effective December 31 1999 the monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one dollar and seventv-four cents ($1 74) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly 2 Water Rate Fee demand charge for service and meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly rate is two dollars and thirty cents ($2.30) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter. The monthly demand charge for service and meter is as follows: Meter size Charge (inches) 5/8 x 3/4 $ 2.20 1 2.45 1 1/2 3.30 2 4.00 3 13.95 4 16.80 6 28.10 8 37.59 10 48.46 B. For lifeline qualified water service customers, the monthly rate is forty-five cents ($0.45) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter as set forth in subsection (A) above. C. Eligibility criteria for lifeline rate shall be as established by city council. D. 1. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city, water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single billing period under the following circumstances: a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject property; or b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that the meter is functioning properly. This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty(50) percent of the difference between the total amount of the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be 3 Water Rate Fee computed by determining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use conditions, during the preceding twelve (12)months and dividing that total volume by the number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve(12) month period. 2. This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be applied to one (1)billing period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the affected water I, system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for adjustment. 3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection, the city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether or not to adjust the customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination, — city staff shall be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer's water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment. 4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of water meter and water system, where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All repairs shall occur within thirty(30) days of application to the city. 5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation committee. i SECTION 3. Section 7.02.310 of the Kent City Code is amended to increase the water rates outside the city as follows: See. 7.02.310 Water rates outside city. A. The monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is one dollar and sixty-four cents j ($1.64) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and 4 Water Rate Fee meter, and from May I to September 30 the monthly charge is two dollars ($2) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter. Effective December 31, 1999, the monthly rate from October 1 to April 30 is two dollars and thirty cents ($2.30)per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter, and from May 1 to September 30 the monthly charge is two dollars and eighty cents ($2.80)per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter. The monthly demand charge for service and meter is as follows: Meter size Charge (inches) 5/8 x 3/4 $ 2.20 1 2.45 1 1/2 3.30 2 4.00 3 13.95 4 16.80 6 28.10 8 37.59 10 48.46 B. For lifeline qualified water service customers, the monthly rate is forty-eight cents ($0.48) per one hundred (100) cubic feet plus a monthly demand charge for service and meter as set forth in subsection (A) above. C. Eligibility criteria for lifeline rate shall be as established by city council. D. I. Subject to the right of access and inspection by a representative of the city, water service customers of the city may apply for a one-time rate adjustment for any single billing period under the following circumstances: a. An accidental water leak has been discovered on the subject property; or b. A water line failure has occurred on the subject property; or C. An unexplained, abnormal water meter reading has occurred on the subject property even though subsequent city inspection of the water meter indicates that the meter is functioning properly. 5 Water Rate Fee This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty(50)percent of the difference between the total amount of the billing period sought for adjustment minus the customer's average water usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the "average water usage" shall be computed by determining the total volume of water consumed, under normal use conditions, during the preceding twelve (12)months and dividing that total volume by the number of times the city would typically read the customer's water meter in a twelve (12) month period. i 2. This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time basis only and can only be applied to one (1) billing period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the affected water system must be owned by or subject to the exclusive control of the customer and be located between the city's water meter and owner's residence or structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed two (2) times the customer's highest usage in any single billing period during the twelve (12) months prior to the billing period sought for adjustment. 3. Following a request for rate adjustment provided under this subsection, the I city's finance director, or his/her designee, shall review the request and determine whether or not to adjust the customer's monthly billing. In order to make a proper determination, city staff shall be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer's water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment. 4. If approved, the city shall make this rate adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer's account after verification of leakage or water system failure, inspection of water meter and water system, where applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All repairs shall occur within thirty (30) days of application to the city. 5. The owner may request reconsideration of the decision of the finance director, or his/her designee, by the city council through the city council's operation committee. i SECTION 4. — Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or i sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall I 6 Water Rate Fee not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. —Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: i i ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1999. APPROVED: day of 11999. PUBLISHED: day of 11999. 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 P9Civi1\Ordinance\Water.Rate.Amend.123199.dm I 7 Water Rate Fee Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of an ordinance which will increase the City' s sewer rate fees . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: m Councilmeber UaiK moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of Ordinance No. 34 S7 authorizing an increase in the City' s sewer rate fees . DISCUSSION: ACTION: I v `� " I Council Agenda Item No. 7F DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works/Plannit�g Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom �M�J� RE: Sewer Rates King County (Metro) has increased its rate for sewage treatment from 519.10 to 519.50 per month per residential equivalent (750 cubic feet of sewage). As we have traditionally done in the past, we are recommending passing along this increase including the associated utility tax thereon to our customers. In addition thereto we are also seeking a 50.74 or 2.9% increase in the overall monthly residential equivalent rate which would raise the total overall increase of the rate to 6.3%. If you will recall last July we implemented a 4.5% overall rate increase (February memo attached) to get the sewer fund back on sound financial ground. It now appears that that increase was not sufficient. One thing that affected this was that our east hill sewer interceptor project is estimated to cost more than what we perceived it to cost back in January. The 2000 budget reflects the appropriate amount but requires a little more debt service coverage to do so and thus affected the ending balance. It should be noted that said project cost is still tower then originally anticipated. While we were putting the 1999 budget together we cut the project budget more then we should have. Also to clear up an accounting issue we want to incorporate the 101% utility tax into the rate itself versus it presently being reflected on the customer's bill as an add- on. Thus the city's entire utility tax would be included in the rate versus part in and part out. It is the Public Works Department's recommendation that the sewer rates be increased as proposed herein and on the attached table. Because an ordinance requires a 30 day period after passage to become effective and any rate adjustment needs to be in place prior to January t" in order to be effective per I-695, we have taken the liberty to include the rate adjustment ordinance on the November 161h Council agenda. t should point out that we will have several versions of- the Ordinance available at the meeting. We will do so because if council elects to fund the budget short fall attributed to I-695 in part or whole via a utility tax increase or fund the 54,000,000 obligation per the parking garage structure associated with the Commuter Rail Station via a utility tax increase, that said increase will need to be included into the rate strulcturG. MOTION: Recommend to full Council adoption of the sewer service rate increased as proposed herein. NIPS599 Proposed Sewer Increase 1999 2000 Metro Portion 19.10 19.50 City Charge 6.23 7.41 Subtotal 25.33 26.91 1% Utility Tax 0.25 0.27 Total Sewer Rate 25.58 27.18 % Increase 6.3% DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS February 1, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning.Committee FROM: Don Wickstroi) RE: Sewer Comp Plan As intended, this item was carried over from the January 20u' Committee meeting. A copy of the memo from that meeting is enclosed. Nothing new thereon is planned to be presented. It should be noted, however that the SEPA process for the Plan has not yet been completed. Because this is a planning level document the SEPA process shouldn't raise any issues unlike that associated with a specific construction project. Further the document itself presents nothing new or controversial which supports a high probability of a clean Determination of Non-Significance. Since we are on a tight time frame, we ask that the Committee recommend adoption of the Comp Plan to the full Council subject to the issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) wherein the conditions thereof are of an inconsequential nature as determined by the Public Works Director to the content of the Plan. With respect to the sewer rate increase which is a separate and stand alone issue from the Comp Plan it is recommended that the rate increase be adopted as proposed with the effective date thereof being July 1, 1999. The Finance Director did bring to my attention that the City's utility tax, at least that portion thereof dedicated for street purposes (1%), is added on at the end as a separate item on the customer's bill. She was originally recommending that it be included in this rate proposal. The net financial impact thereof to the customer is zero but to May it cleans up an accounting issue for her. Since the drainage rates as well as the water rates are similarly affected, it is both our recommendation that this particular issue should be differed to 2000 budget process. To do only the sewer now would raise unnecessary difficulties with the billing computer program. It should be noted that said 1% was not included in calculating the 4.5% rate increase therefore, the rates are as they were proposed. MOTION: Recommends to the full Council adoption the Sewer Comp Plan subject to the issuance of a DNS or MDNS where the conditions thereof are of an inconsequential nature as determined by the Public Works Director to the content of the Plan. MOTION: Recommends to the full Council adoption of the Sewer rate increase as proposed herein with the effective date of July 1, 1999 and direct the City Attorney to prepare and bring back to the full Council the necessary Ordinance for same. MPI899 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS January 20, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom�' RE: Sewer Comp Plan +-�"� Enclosed is the Updated Sewer Comprehensive Plan along with other pertinent information. The discussion at this meeting well be the introduction of the Comp Plan and a rate increase issue. Action will be sought at the next Committee meeting. The real driver behind the update of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan is the fad that the service area of the City's Sewer System includes portions of unincorporated King County. While said area is relatively small with respect to the entire service area to provide sewer service thereto, a County franchise is required and our existing one has or is about to expire. To obtain a new franchise, the County requires an updated Comp Plan. Our original Comp Plan vas developed in 1980 and identified approximately $3,500,000 (1980 dollars) worth of improvements mostly rehabs and rebuilds. Over the years these projects have all been completed. Since the 1980 Comp Plan, the only new significant project identified is the East Hill Interceptor project, which is presently fully funded. With its completion, the City will have a relatively new system that is capable to service the City's growth needs to full build- out. It's important to note we have been able to accomplish all this without issuing new debt or rates. In fact, the sewer portion of our Sewerage Utility is debt free. While sewer rates have gone up over the years, those increases have been attributed to Metro's (now King County) portion of the rate. Further, at least one of those years the Utility absorbed the Metro increase versus passing it on. Also, for years because the Utility pays the State a utility tax (approx. 1%) predicated on gross revenues as Metro's increases were passed, on the Utility absorbed the State tax increase attributed thereto. In addition, the State utility tax rate was increased at least once for which it was also absorbed. Further the City's utility tax rate has had increases over the years for which they were also absorbed. These absorbtions along with those associated with labor, material, and equipment costs were appropriate when the revenue stream so allowed. However, as was noted by the Finance Director during the 1999 budget discussions, a rate increase in the City's portion of the sewer rate is now necessary in order for the sewer to pay its operating expenses without encroaching on Storm Drainage revenues of the Sewerage Fund. As reflected in the attached table we recommend a 4.5% increase in the overall sewer rate with an affected date of April 1, 1999. This would equate to an increase of a S 1.09 per month in the single-family residential rate. Such a rate increase would be adequate to recoup our expenses including covering our annual miscellaneous improvement program and retaining a one time minor emergency fund of 5500,000-$600,000 to draw on should the case arise. ACTION: Continue to next Committee meeting MP0899 SEWERAGE FUND 1999-2004 REVISED FORECAST (AMOUNTS IN 000's) SEWER PORTION ONLY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20D4 Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Priority Sewer Operating Revenue 12,182 12,625 13,110 14,264 14.290 14.316 Sewer Operating Expenses Existing Expenses 11.595 12.062 12,576 13,733 13,811 13.892 Additional staff,supplies.services and equipment 86 88 90 93 95 98 Total Sewer Operating Expenses 11,681 12,150 12.666 13,825 13.906 13,990 Sewer Operating Income(Loss) 501 475 444 438 384 326 Other Financial Sources Miscellaneous Revenue 34 34 34 34 34 34 Interest Income Total Other Financial Sources 34 34 34 34 34 34 Net Available for Expenditures 535 509 478 472 418 360 Expenditures -Debt Service-Existing Debt'Service-1999 Issue-- 97 97 97 97 97 Total Expenditures 0 97 97 97 97 97 Net Available for Capital Projects 535 412 381 375 321 263 Proceeds from Long-Term Debt" 1,183 Total Available for Capital Projects 1.718 412 381 375 321 263 Capital Project Requests East Hill Interceptor-- 1,183 0 0 0 0 0 1 Miscellaneous Sewer Lines 270 281 291 303 315 327 2 City-wide Technology Plan 250 250 3 Total Capital Project Requests 1.703 531 291 303 315 327 Total Revenues Over(Under)Capital Projects 15 (119) 90 72 6 (64) Beginning Working Capital 603 618 499 589 661 667 Ending Working Capital 618 499 589 661 667 603 Increase in revenues 4.327%above Finance's projection. -' Reduction in the East Hill Interceptor capital request and the related debt service. City of Kent =wer Rate History (1989 - 1998) ` 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 City Charge 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.02 5.02 5.10 5.14 5.14 5.14 Metro Charge 10.45 11.60 13.20 13.20 13.62 15.90 17.95 19.10 19.10 19.10 Total 16.45 17.60 19.20 19.20 18.64 20.92 23.05 24.24 24.24 24.24 Residential unit changed from 900 cf to 750 cf. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adjusting the scheduled charges for j sewer service inside the City limits. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: I i SECTION 1. Section 7.04.280 of the Kent City Code shall be amended as follows: Sec. 7.04.280. Schedule of charges for service inside City limits. The following are th sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the City limits are in effect on the dates and in the amounts listed below. Type of Service Charge per month Effective until Effective on December 31, December 31, 1999 1999 1. Single-family residential dwelling, as $25.33 $27.18 defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC. 2. Two-family or multiple-family residential $25.33 $27.18 dwelling, as defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC, each unit separately charged. 3. Single-family residential/Lifeline: $23.41 2$ 4.56 Eligibility criteria for Lifeline Rate shall be established by City Council. 4. All other than single-family residential, $3.38 $3.63 shall be billed in accordance with the per 100 cubic per 100 cubic consumption of water and at the following feet per month feet per month rate, except that no monthly bill shall be i less than$533 $27.18. 1 Sewer Rate Increasel SECTION 2 Kent City Code Section 7.04.280, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on July 1, 1999, which is at least thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: I I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY i i 2 Sewer Rate Increase PASSED: day of , 1999. APPROVED: day of , 1999. I PUBLISHED: day of , 1999. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the j 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 '\CITYH LLUSERSLAW\PUBLICCivil\Ordinnce6cwer.Chv em nd.12309.doc I I 3 Sewer Rate Increase Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 . 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: DRAINAGE RATE ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works/ Planning Committee, adoption of an ordinance which will increase the City' s drainage rate fees . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 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: -- VV CouncilmemberC�/�/ ' moves, Councilmember_ seconds adoption of Ordinance No.3-q-L� authorizing an increase in the City' s drainage rate fees . DISCUSSION: ACTION: IV G Council Agenda Item No. 7G DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom � I RE: Drainage Rates yJY As you're aware earlier this year you adopted the Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program along with the respective drainage rate changes therefore. Said rate change was a two step increase with the first increase effective January 1'` of 2000 and the second following one year later. With the passage of I-695 to resolve any legal ambiguity said two step increases needs to be compressed to just one increase and the effective date needs to be changed to December 31'` 1999. As such instead of the rate going to S4.64/month on January I` it is the Public Works Department's recommendation that it goes to S6.58/month on December 31". As was noted during the original presentation and discussions on this matter the City's rate is still 50 cents less then what the County was charging the area prior to its annexing to the City. Further _ and more significant is the fact that the money generated therefrom will be used directly to finance the construction of improvements within this basin. Besides the changes noted above we would also like to include within the rate the 1-% City utility tax that is presently shown as a separate item on the customer's bill. This is a zero dollar change to the customer as they are presently paying it. It simply cleans up an accounting issue and puts all the utility tax into the rate versus part in and part out. Because an ordinance requires a 30-day period after passage before it becomes affective and a new rate must be in affect prior to January I", we have taken the liberty of placing this item on your November 161h council agenda for action. Please keep in mind also that any increase in the utility tax to either address I- 695 budget shortfall or the financing of the $4,000,000 parking garage obligation per the commuter rail station needs to also be incorporated into this rate. Since your decision thereon might come at either you're November 16`h workshop or that evening's Council meeting, we will have various versions of the rate adjustment ordinance available at the Council meeting to reflect it. MOTION: Recommend to full Council adoption of the ordinance increasing the drainage rate in the Soos Creek Basin as proposed above. MPss99 Proposed Drainage Increase 1999 2000 1% Utility 2000 Rate Before Tax Tax Rate Basin A 7.25 7.25 0.07 7.32 Basin B 4.46 4.46 0.04 4.50 Basin C 4.56 4.56 0.05 4.61 Basin D 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin E 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin F 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin G 6.51 6.51 0.07 6.58 Basin H 2.53 6.58 0.07 6.65 Soos Creek Basin Basin 1 4.29 4.29 0.04 4.33 Basin J 4.29 4.29 0.04 4.33 Basin K 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin L 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin M, 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin N 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin O 2.53 2.53 0.03 2.56 Basin P 2.57 2.57 0.03 2.60 Basin O 7.25 7.25 0.07 7.32 _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 2, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom+ FJ RE: System Development Fee - Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program There were questions raised at the most recent Public Works/Planning Committee meeting that were not adequately answered. As such, the attached memorandum (Soos Creek Basin System Development Fee) explains the impact of what a system development fee would have on the proposed rate stricture. Also attached is my memorandum explaining the computer modeling effort that was completed during the study and the cost of one of the projects. At this time I am requesting that Committee move this item forward to the next full Council meeting. MOTION: Recommend authorization for Council to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary Ordinance adopting the Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 1 , 1999 TO : Don Wickstromm FROM: Paul Scot r - RE : Soos Cree Basin System Development Fee In establishing a system development fee for stormwater, I found that of the jurisdictions in the proximity of Kent , only Auburn, Des Moines and Renton have such a charge . The fee for Auburn and Des -Moines is $400 while Renton is $385 . It seemed reasonable for this analysis to use $400 as the system development fee in projecting revenue . Using the Growth Management Plan I extrapolated a rate of straight -line growth for households in this basin at 1 . 03% . The resulting ESU' s, excluding streets, are as follows : 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 9132 9225 9318 9411 9504 Using $400 as the system development charge, the extra revenue that would be generated based upon the 1 . 03% growth in ESU' s would be $37 , 200 annually. The revenue requirements of this basin, incorporating the additional money generated by a system development charge, would result in the rates as summarized below: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4 . 64 6 . 82 6 . 66 6 . 50 6 . 34 Because the rates fluctuate between 2001 through 2004 , it is my suggestion that the rates be averaged for the four-year time period so there would only be one required rate adjustment needed in 2001 . The modified rate structure would then be as follows : 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4 . 64 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 The comparison of the rates required to generate the needed revenue to make the capital improvements in the basin with and without the $400 system development fee, with the four year time period averaged, are summarized as follows : 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 With charge 4 . 64 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 6 . 58 Without charge 4 . 86 6 . 79 6 . 79 6 . 79 6 . 79 Difference 0 . 22 0 . 21 0 . 21 0 . 21 0 . 21 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS March 23, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom� RE: Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program I am writing to address several questions that came up both before and during the Public Works/Planning Committee meeting with regard to the presentation on the Meridian Annexation Area Stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The questions specifically relate to the computer modeling effort that was completed during the study and the cost of one of the projects. The questions and answers are as follows: 1) Why was Lake Meridian not included as impervious area in the model? This question relates to the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis". The source of the confusion may be the table at the bottom of page 8 or Tables 2 and 3 on pages 29 and 30 in the report. These tables correctly indicate that the lake is not treated as "effective impervious area". This is a result of both the definition of "effective impervious area" and the structure of the HSPF model used for the hydrologic analysis. Effective impervious area is an area where there is no opportunity for surface runoff from an impervious site to infiltrate into the soil before it reaches a conveyance system (pipe, ditch, stream, etc.). Impervious areas and pervious areas are "land types" that have specific areas and parameter sets that are programmed into the model. In HSPF programming language, these areas are called "RvIPLNDS" and "PERLNDs". Open channels and lakes are characterized separately from the RAPLNDS and PERLNDS in the model. In HSPF programming language, these open channel reaches and lakes are called "RCHRES's" and have their own parameter sets. Hydrologic flux and balance calculations are completed for both the land types (PERLNDs and IINPLNDs) and the open water segments (RHRES's), guaranteeing that the hydrologic cycle is simulated in its entirety. 2) Streamflows seem to increase dramatically downstream of the outlet of Lake Meridian. Is this a result of discharges from wetlands along the flow path? Streamflows do increase in the downstream direction as expected, with the increases generally explained by increases in tributary drainage areas. Wetlands may function to either move groundwater to surface water—"discharge", or move surface water to groundwater— "recharge". Wetlands also provide for surface and subsurface storage of water. These functions may vary seasonally. The exact hydrologic timing and function of a specific wetland is difficult to determine without monitoring using surface flow and crest gauges and shallow and deep piezometers. Streamflow in the Lake Meridian Watershed was simulated by four RHRES's (see discussion above). Streamflows are extracted from the model at the downstream end of each RHRES. Streamflows for a range of return periods under the current land use scenario are presented in Table 7 of the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis". Flows expected under the future land use scenario are presented in Table 10. Data for the four Lake Meridian RHRES's are listed at the top of the table. The tables show that, under both current and future conditions, for the 25-year event, streamflows increase in the downstream direction in relation to the increased tributary area. For example, under the current conditions scenario, flow at the outlet of the lake is 11.7 cfs, increases to 15.8 cfs at the cross culvert under 152"d (approximately 1,400 feet south of Kent Kangley Road), and is 23.9 cfs at the confluence of the outlet channel and Big Soos Creek. 3) What alignment does the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel follow downstream of its beginning at the Lake Meridian Park? Does it flow directly east to Big Soos Creek? The alignment of the Lake Meridian Outlet channel was investigated using several approaches: 1) Public Works staff walked the channel on two occasions, 2) a survey crew completed a channel survey and the resulting information was used to develop a map of the stream location and associated channel cross sections, 3) staff from two consulting engineering firms walked sections of the channel. As a result of these activities, the following alignment was identified: • The outlet channel begins at the Lake Meridian Park at the Southeast corner of the Lake, and continues through a series of culverts in the park and a culvert across 152d Way SE • Starting on the east side of 152"d Way SE, the channel follows a route through a forested area. The channel continues through this area, outletting to a long swale/pond on the west side of the Cascade Villa Mobile Home Park. From the swale/pond outlet, drainage flows through a series of culverts on the east side of 152"d Way SE, including a culvert crossing Kent Kangley Road from the Northeast to the Southwest. • Drainage then flows through a wetland area west of 152"d Ave SE and south of Kent Kangley Road. A culvert conveys flow across 152"d Ave to the start of a channel on the east side of 152"d Ave. This straight channel continues along an alignment just east and parallel to 152"d Ave until the outlet at Big Soos Creek south of Highway 18. There is no direct surface connection of the channel with Big Soos Creek other than the confluence south of Highway 18. However, as described on page 4-8 of the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan", the Public Works Department is currently examining the feasibility of constructing a new channel to convey flows from Lake Meridian more directly to Big Soos Creek. One potential alignment for this new channel is shown in Figure 6 of the same report as a red line labeled "LM-2". 4) Why was the HSPF model used when it is an older model that is not very "user- friendly"? The HSPF model is an older model. In fact the current release is the 111h version of the model. It is the only model available that accurately simulates the entire hydrologic cycle over extended periods of time. In addition, it is an EPA supported model that is very well documented. The model has been used extensively throughout Puget Sound in development of Basin Plans that recommend capital improvements, and resource management and land use policies. It is not "user friendly". 5) How was the model calibrated? Why wasn't verification completed? As described on pages 5, 11, and 12 of the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis", the model was calibrated using lake level (stage) data from Lake Meridian for the period October 1994, 1995, and 1996. As described in the report, calibration requires selecting appropriate parameter values that represent the physical hydrologic processes for the watershed, testing the values by comparing the model results with recorded streamflow or stage data, and modifying parameter values where appropriate to achieve a better match between simulated and recorded results. Verification is a separate step that involves comparing the output of the calibrated model with a separate period of observed flows to "verify" that the model is accurately representing hydrologic processes. An additional two to three years of observed data, separate from the _ calibration time period, is required for verification. Therefore, collection of data for verification would have delayed completion of the study two to three years. Calibration results are shown in Figure 4, page 27 of the report. Simulated lake levels are generally within 6" of recorded levels. The parameters used for the Lake Meridian Watershed were also used for the other watersheds. The same soil types/geologic units located in adjacent watersheds will generally exhibit the same hydrologic characteristics. Therefore, the success of the calibration in the Lake Meridian Watershed indicates the same level of success in the adjoining watersheds. It should be kept in mind that no model can ever replicate the complex processes involved in the natural hydrologic cycle. However, computer modeling, coupled with direct field observations of flooding and a design process that includes a factor of safety to account for uncertainty, is an important tool to be used in development of solutions for flooding. 6) What is the cost for the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel project? What is the justification for the project? The hydraulic modeling indicated that all of the culvert crossings south of SE 2761' Place along the Lake Meridian Outlet Channel are undersized. In addition, the channel segment upstream of the culvert crossing of 152"d near SE 276s Place is undersized. Because 152"d Avenue is designated as a principle arterial, as developments occur therealong, improvement of 152"d _ Avenue to City standards is being required. As such, the issues relating to the channel have to be addressed and to burden an individual owner therewith seems inappropriate. In addition to these issues, the existing channel is severely degraded in terms of fisheries habitat. In response to the flooding and fisheries problems, a preliminary design and cost were developed for a new channel to be located adjacent to 152"" Ave SE. The estimated cost for this project is $3.7 million. Another alternative to the north-south alignment for the new Lake Meridian Channel was investigated. It would involve diverting some or all of the outflow from the lake to a channel that would flow more directly to Big Soos Creek. Flow would be diverted beginning somewhere just east of the existing lake outlet and flow in a north and east direction to connect with Big Soos Creek. The pros and cons of this alternative are discussed in the report titled: "Meridian Annexation Area Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan". The estimated cost for this project is $2.4 million. Due to the greater uncertainty associated with regulatory approval of this project and the need to provide conservative project estimates in the CIP, the cost for the north-south alignment was included in the CIP. NV4699 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT March 1, 1999 To: Public Works/Pla ing Committee From: Don WickstroiNublic Works Director Re: Meridian Stormwater Capital Improvement Program The following memo provides background on the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program and related stormwater utility rate changes proposed for the Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexation Areas. Additional details relating to the Program and proposed rates will be discussed at the March 1, 1999 meeting of the Kent City Council Public Works/Planning Committee. Two reports provided with this memo contain supporting information. They are: • Meridian Annexation Area Hydrologic Analysis (AQUA TERRA Consultants, 1999) • Meridian Annexation Area Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan (R.W. Beck, 1999) BACKGROUND The 1996 Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexations added approximately 6.6 square miles to the City of Kent. Prior to the annexations, stormwater service and stream resource management was under the jurisdiction of King County. These areas generally received a low level of service. Flooding and fish habitat problems were being addressed based on a prioritization among other projects throughout the iarger Soos Creek Watershed. Several improvements were originally proposed in the Soos Creek Basin Plan completed in 1990. That plan is now almost 10 years old. In response to the annexations, the City initiated several studies to address stormwater conveyance and fish habitat needs for the area. They included the following: • A Fish Habitat and Population Survey to determine the presence or absence of fish populations, the quantity and quality of existing fish habitat, and identify habitat improvement needs (this study included other areas in the city) • A Hydrologic Analysis to quantify the changes in stormwater runoff rates and volumes that are expected to occur as the area develops • A Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan to: 1) analyze and locate flooding problems and develop solutions; 2) compile habitat improvements identified in the fisheries study and improvements identified by other sources (agencies, tribes, etc.), and 3) develop a prioritized list with associated costs for flooding solutions and fish habitat improvements The main goal of the effort was to develop a Capital Improvement Program, with an associated budget and schedule, that would address the stormwater and fisheries habitat needs in the area. Funding mechanisms could then be developed to meet these needs. BASIN ORIENTATION A study area was established for completion of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. The study area included the watersheds for three drainage systems which, in turn, are tributary to Big Soos Creek. A map showing these watersheds is attached. While the total area of the three watersheds is 8.2 square miles, 2.5 square miles are currently outside the City limits. The Soosette Creek Watershed contains the most complex drainage network of the three study watersheds, draining areas from as far north as SE 248d' St. Several large wetlands and a regional detention facility are located in the watershed. The confluence of Soosette Creek and Big Soos Creek is located beyond the City limits. The Clark Lake /Meridian Valley Creek Watershed collects water from two tributaries — one which originates north of the current city limits, and the other which includes Clark Lake. The confluence of the tributaries is located in the vicinity of the SE 240u St and 132"d Ave SE intersection. Downstream of the confluence, Meridian Valley Creek flows towards the southeast through the Meridian Valley Country Club to its outlet to Big Soos Creek at SE 250h and 148s Ave SE. The Lake Meridian Watershed is dominated by the lake, which covers almost half of the watershed area. The outflow channel is the most highly degraded drainage system within the study area. Through the majority of its length it consists of a linear ditch running adjacent to the east side of 152"d Ave SE. The ditch conveys outflow from the lake and local stormwater runoff to Big Soos Creek where Big Soos flows under the Kent/Black Diamond Road. IMPLICATIONS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT It is expected that the Puget Sound Chinook are going to be listed as a threatened species this spring under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are also indications that Puget Sound Coho may also be listed within the next couple of years. These listings will have implications for City resource management and land development. State and local response plans are currently under development. The creeks in the annexation areas are among the most productive, in terms of fisheries, in the Lower Green River system. As a result of this and the "fisheries-focus" of state and local agencies in response to the ESA listings, the Capital Improvement Plan developed for the annexation area includes several fisheries-related projects. The overall objectives of these projects are: 1) preservation of existing fisheries resources and 2) restoration to improve habitat where there has been some impact from urbanization. PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS A total of 39 flooding and fish habitat problems were identified during the studies. Most of the flooding problems involve culverts that are undersized. New culverts are proposed for 18 locations. Identified fisheries problems include fish passage barriers that need to be removed and riparian habitat problems such as a lack of streamside vegetation and insufficient streambed gravels for salmon spawning. Thirteen projects have been developed to address these problems. Details relating to all of the problems and solutions are presented in the attached "Hydraulic Analysis and Capital Improvement Program" report. (see Tables 2 and 5) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET AND SCHEDULE The Capital Improvement Program is presented in the attached table. A total of $10,311,300 in improvements are proposed, including $8,413,000 (82 %) in conveyance projects to solve flooding problems, and $1,898,300 (18 %) in fish habitat projects. The plan is scheduled for funding over a six year time period. The projects are presented in the table in prioritized order, based on the following criteria: • The magnitude and location of the flooding problem — the threat to life and property and the flood hazard on major transportation arterials • The need to complete projects in a sequence from downstream to upstream to avoid exacerbation of existing problems • Agency and Tribal input • Grouping related projects • Projects for which designs have been completed and/or easements have been secured REVENUE AND RATES Stormwater Utility fees will be the primary source of funding for implementation of the Capital Improvement Program. A series of calculations and fiscal models were completed to determine: 1) proposed stormwater rates and associated annual revenue, and 2) the approach for generation of revenue to fund the entire program within a 6-year time period. Given the $10,311,300 fotal cost for the program and a six year funding schedule, the following method for generation of revenue is planned: • A 2-step stormwater utility fee increase, with the first increase from the current rate of $2.36/month to $4.89/month implemented on January 1, 2000, and the second increase from $4.89/month to $7.25/month implemented on January 1, 2001 • Funding would be generated on a "pay as you go" basis for the first five years. Revenue bonds would be issued in the sixth year to cover the remainder of the capital needs. For comparison, current rate in the City's Mill Creek Basin is $7.25/month, and the rate in unincorporated King County is $7.09/month. Please keep in mind that prior to this area annexing into the City, all properties were subject to and paying the County's stormwater rate. While by 2001, our rate will be slightly higher than the County's, the money generated will be used to construct improvements within the basin. This is an introduction item at this time and we will be requesting "action" at the next Committee meeting. Attachments W 3499 mk C / � Z � z � � 3M ! / � { \ � � 7 /f � / ! b R— R! In / . G It \ R ! � ! ©| R ` A R ig f22_ 5 | | | | H| It < IN � m � ! ■ ( ! | ..... ...i . t . lRIti gill • ' �..l•,�� (gf{ | |! ! |; E | | • ! ,.. | ; ! ! _ l 9! I' ' a :f :� .| .� | , ! f • �| ! |� |� )| ! ! ! k . k k � � ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 7.05.090 of the Kent City Code by increasing the basic rate and the basin- specific rate charged by the City storm and surface water utility, and amending Section 7.05.160 of the Kent City Code by amending the date for imposition of increased connection fees in the Soos Creek Watershed (Basin H). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 7.05.090 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: it Sec. 7.05.090. System of charges. A. There is hereby imposed a system of charges on each parcel of real property within the city served by or to which is available for service the storm and surface water utility established by this chapter. The charges are found to be reasonable and necessary to fund administration, planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, improvement, and replacement of all existing and future storm and surface water facilities, including the accumulation of reserves and the retirement of any associated l� debt. it B. The following charges are hereby established for all parcels of real property in the city: I 1. Residential parcels. Effective January 1, 1998, the single-family residential rate shall be two dollars and forty-four cents (52.44)per month for each parcel I 1 Stormwater Charges having one(1)residential dwelling plus the basin specific charge of subsection B.4 below. Effective December 31, 1999, the single-family residential rate shall be two dollars and forty-seven cents ($2.47) per month for each parcel having one (1) residential dwelling plus the basin specific charge of subsection B.4 below. 2. Agricultural and undeveloped parcels: Agricultural parcels shall be charged the monthly residential parcel rate. Undeveloped parcels shall not be charged. 3. Other parcels: a. The charge for all other parcels except residential parcels, agricultural parcels and undeveloped parcels shall be based upon: (1) The total amount of impervious surface as expressed in equivalent service units (an equivalent service unit has been determined to be two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of impervious surface or any fraction thereof); and (2) The percentage of impervious surface area on each parcel. b. The charge for all such parcels shall be computed: (1) By multiplying the total number of ESU's on each by the appropriate parcel impervious multiplier; and (2) Multiplying the results by the sum of the single-family residential rate and the appropriate basin-specific charge. C. Impervious multipliers are hereby established: (1) Percentage of impervious area per parcel Impervious multiplier (impervious surface/total surface x 100) 1 to 40 1 41 to 60 1.2 61 to 80 1.4 81 to 100 1.6 2 Stormwater Charges (2) Impervious multipliers correlate the hydraulic impact of a parcel to its percentage of impervious surface per parcel. The multiplier for the average single-family residence is established as one (1). The multiplier linearly increases as the percentage of impervious area increases. The final category has a multiplier of one and six-tenths (1.6) which reflects the hydraulic impact on the drainage system compared to that impact of the average single-family residence. 4. Basin-specific charges: The city shall have all lawful powers and authorities to fix, alter, regulate and control charges within specific basins and subbasins. The purpose of the power and authority granted in this section is to provide for charging parcels of one (1) basin or subbasin for improvements, studies or extraordinary maintenance which specifically and solely benefit the property owners thereof. The basin- specific charges are as follows: Charge in dollars per ESU per month Basin Effective date Effective date E feetiv—date January 1, 1998 dasa 000 deeuan1,2001- December 31, 1999 Westside O 0.09 0.09 0.10 Q_.W K, L, M, D, E, 0.13 04-3 0.14 04-3 F, P & N Eastside i� Mill Creek Upper(G) 4.07 4.9-7 4.11 444 Lower (A) 4.81 451-4.86 474 V alley Det. (0) 4.81 4�4.86 48f Garrison Creek II II _ i 3 Stormwater Charges Lower (B) 2.02 ? A2 2.04 2-.Q Upper(J & 1) 1.85 4-.85 1.87 4-.85 Direct (C) 2.12 2-4-2 2.14 Soos Creek(H) 0.09 2-.220 4.18 4.44 I i The boundaries of the described basins are generally indicated on Attachment A to Ordinance No. 3461,which is on file with the City Clerk. The boundaries of the basins and subbasins are generally defined and on file in the city clerk's office. The detailed definitions thereof are reflected on maps filed in the engineering division of the public I works department, which are available to the public for review and/or copying during normal business hours. 5. Water quality charges: a. The city hereby authorizes and declares its intent to establish, within two (2) years of the adoption of this chapter, a water quality charge which may be added to any or all of the above rates. The purposes of such a charge will be to finance monitoring, testing, treatment and control of pollutant discharges into the storm and surface water system, including the exercise of all lawful enforcement powers of the city. i A plan for developing such charges, and a schedule and budget for this project shall be submitted to the city council for review and approval within ninety(90) days of adoption of this chapter. A system of water pollution charges for storm and surface water run-off from all parcels of real property in the city shall be developed within two (2) years. b. Such charges should be based upon appropriate indices of pollutant discharges which approximate each parcel's contribution to the problem of water quality within storm and surface water facilities including all receiving waters. 6. Undeveloped parcels shall be subject to all charges established under this section upon development of a parcel. Development shall be determined by the date of issuance of a building permit or any other permit for development purposes or as ^ otherwise established by the director of public works. I 4 Stormwater Charges SECTION 2. Section 7.05.160 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 7.05.160. Connection fees. Connection fees shall be assessed against an owner of real property at the time of issuance of a development permit for any onsite storm or surface water drainage structure or facilities which attach or connect to, or i otherwise drain into, the system of drainage facilities as defined in KCC 7.05.050 or where any additional surface or storm water run-off is generated and delivered or transported through either natural or person-made watercourses to the utility's system of storm and surface water facilities. The connection fees shall be as follows: Basin Connection charge in dollars per month per acre G 12.50 I 11.25 A 13.75 B 12.50 I� C & A 1.25 All others (except Basin H) 0.0 As of januafy 1, 2000 December 31, 1999, for Basin H only (the Soos Creek Watershed, generally), the charge per connection will be a flat fee of four hundred dollars (5400) per ESU. The basins are as defined under KCC 7.05.090(B)(4). The charge is calculated by the number of months from the date of adoption of this chapter to the date of issuance of the development permit, and the acre represents the area of the property being developed. All connection fees collected by the storm and surface water utility shall be placed in a separate revenue account for the storm and surface water utility. 5 Stormwater Charges SECTION 3. -Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall j not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. 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 11999. 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 F C.....Ordman<AS\oimDrvnCharge vrcnd 123 1"doc j 6 Stormwater Charges Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: REPEAL OF STREET UTILITY TAX SUNSET PROVISIONS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to Section 3 . 18 . 020 of the Kent City Code, a tax of one percent (1%) of utility taxes assessed is dedicated to City street improvement programs . This interim tax expires on December 31, 2006 . The proposed ordinance would repeal the sunset provisions of the utility tax relating to street improvements . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 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: (n) Councilmember IA4 moves, //Councilmember V seconds adoption of Ordinance No. , repealing the sunset provisions for utility taxes elating to street improvements . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7H DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom '�) RE: Street Utility Tax As you're aware in January of 1996 the City increased its utility tax by an additional 1% and dedicated the monies therefrom to the street improvement program. This was done so because a court decision determined that the manner in which Seattle levied its street utility rate was unconstitutional. As such we instituted the utility tax and dissolved our street utility. The monies generated from either was approximately the same. These monies along with gas tax revenues make up 83% [Gas tax = $1,685,494, (40%); Utility tax = $1,795,351, (43%)] of the City's "Street Fund" revenues. Said Street Fund is the funding source for implementing the City's Street Capital Improvement program. Every year under the Growth Management Act the _ City's is required to update its financially balanced 6-year Capital Facility Plan for which the Street Capital Improvement program is an element thereof. The problem however is that the ordinance enacting the utility tax has a sunset provisioned which expires December 31, 2006. With its expiration there goes about 43% of the street fund revenue. While we were fully aware of this, it was our intent to pursue abolishment of said sunset provision in the coming year. If we were successful it would have resulted in us formulating a 2001 balanced Capital Facilities Plan without have to declare non-concurrency with respect to the Transportation element for lack of funding per implementing the west leg the 2281h Street corridor which is a concurrency project. Now with the passage of I-695 if the abolishment is not in affect prior to December 3 1" of this year a vote of the citizens is required to accomplish same. While avoiding a non-concurrency issue was our primary objective, I-695 has raised other issue with respect to the revenue sources of the "Street fund "which with at least the abolishment assure some financial integrity to the fund and as such in return to the City's street infrastructure system. As stated, the utility tax revenue makes up 43% of the "Street Fund" monies. Without this source we could not have made the progress we have per implementing either the 277`h street corridor project or the 1961h street corridor project. Farther we're not out of the financial woods yet. The State could simply change state law and reallocate state shared gas tax revenue to the State's Department of Transportation (DOT) to address its I-695 budgetary short fall. While this is seemingly politically improbable today, will it remain so in the future as the impacts of I-695 sink in? Who knows! We do know that key legislators have at least approach the State's Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) about its share of the gas tax revenue whether its for diversion to their own district or to DOT we can only guess, however, the thought is there. Even were the gas tax not in jeopardy and its probably not the "Street Fund" is the fund where presently a lot of on going annual street related programs are funded. For example and not counting any street or intersection improvement projects included therein is the annual asphalt overlay program ($460,000), the Road Slurry Seal program ($50,000), the Street Striping program ($79,000), the Sidewalk Rehabilitation program ($300.000), the Bike Path Construction program ($100,000), the Shopper Shuttle program ($45,000), the Traffic Signal Controller Cabinet Replacement program ($50,000), the City-wide Guardrail & Safety Improvement program ($30,000), and the Neighborhood Traffic Control program ($75,000) all of which total $1,189,000. In addition thereto the "Street Fund" also pays the annual debt payment on all outstanding street related bond issues, which presently totals $610,000. In addition thereto included in the 2000 budget is another bond issue for $6,949,000 ($694,900 annual payment) for the parking garage @ $4,000,000 and the corridor projects @ 52,949,000. The sum total of both the existing and proposed annual debt is projected to be $1,304,900. Finally the "Street Fund" also funds 10 FTES [2 in Parks Operation for the Street Tree Maintenance program ($127,650) and 8 in Engineering per implementing the Corridor projects ($40,000)] which together total $167,650 annually. The bottom line here is these annual costs total $2,661550. With the loss of the utility tax the "Street Fund" is $300,851 short in meeting these annual obligations without even considering any money for any street improvements. The last significant funding source of the "Street Fund" is the County's adopted local option (S15) vehicle registration fee ($611,033). While I-695 did not repeal the authority for it, to date we have heard several versions from the State saying they will collect it or they won't collect it. So who knows at this point. Its loss would only add to problems leaving the fund with just enough money to cover a little more than debt service. We know that I-695 lost in King County. We also know based on a recent survey of Kent citizen that traffic congestion is a number 1 concern thereof. So in lieu having the City's street infrastructure spirally deteriorate into a pot hole morass, it's the Public Works Department's recommendation that the sunset provision in the Utility Tax Ordinance be abolished. A copy of the proposed Ordinance to do so is attached. Please be aware that because an ordinance requires a 30-day affective period after passage we have taken the liberty to place this item on your November 16`h council agenda for action. MOTION: Recommend to full Council passage of the Ordinance abolishing the sunset provisions of the Utility Tax Ordinance related to the I% for the Street Improvement Program. MPS999 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending section 3.18.020 of the Kent City Code by repealing the sunset provisions for utility taxes relating to street improvements. WHEREAS, the utility tax dedicated to street improvement programs expires on December 31, 2006; and WHEREAS,the city council desires to repeal the sunset provisions for the tax; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.18.020 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 3.18.020. Certain utilities subject to tax. A. In addition to the other business and license fees required by the ordinances of the city, there is hereby levied upon all persons (including the city) engaged in certain business activities a utilities tax to be collected as follows: 1. Upon every person engaging in or carrying on any telephone business within the city, an annual tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2) percent of the total gross operating revenues, including revenues from intrastate toll, derived from the operation of such business within the city. In addition, there shall also be assessed an intent tax of three-tenths (0.3) percent, which revenue from said 44eti tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs, plus an inter tax of one (1.0) percent ecr etive until , , :m . e i 1 Utility Tar Decembe_ 31 2006 which revenue from said interifn tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs. Gross operating revenues for this purpose shall not include charges which are passed on to the subscribers by a telephone company pursuant to tariffs required by regulatory order to compensate for the cost to the company of the tax imposed by this chapter. 2. Upon every person engaging in or carrying on a business of selling, furnishing, distributing, or producing gaseous gas for commercial or domestic use or purposes, a fee or tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed an intern tax of three-tenths (0.3) percent, which I i revenue from said iRterifn tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs, plus an intetifn tax of one (1.0) percent a ff until !, :cn p.fn. e Deeember31, ''06-, which revenue from said intef4a tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs. i 3. Upon every person engaged in or carrying on the business of selling, furnishing, or distributing electricity for light and power, a fee or tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2)percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which a license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed ait itttertta tax of three-tenths (0.3) percent, • 4gir.I• revs •••e &R--• gRid inte4im t.., -wall `e programs,dediea4ed to yeuth teen plus an int,i rFA tax of one (1.0) percent effective until 11:59 p.m. on December 31, 2006, which revenue from said intefim tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs. 4. Upon every person engaging in or carrying on a business providing garbage service, a tax equal to six and one-half(6 1/2) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year for which the license is required. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interi tax of three-tenths (0.3) percent, which revenue from said inter-ifn tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs,plus as interi tax of one (1.0) percent eff-etivp until 14;59 p.m. an „e e. be_ 31 2006 which revenue from said intefifn tax shall be dedicated to street improvement programs. i 2 Utility Tax c 5. Upon every person (including the city) engaging in or carrying on the business of selling, furnishing or distributing water, sewer or drainage services, a tax equal to three and one-half(3 1/2) percent of the total gross income from such business in the city during the tax year. In addition, there shall also be assessed an interim tax of three-tenths(0.3) percent, which revenue from said 44efifft tax shall be dedicated to youth teen programs, plus aft ifttetim tax of one (1.0) pereent eff etive u pAil " �G° Deeember- 31 2006 which revenue from said interim tax shall be dedicated to street i I improvement programs. i B. In computing the tax provided in subsection (A), the taxpayer may deduct from gross income, the following items: I. The actual amount of credit losses and uncollectibles sustained by the taxpayer. 2. Amounts derived from the transactions in interstate and foreign commerce which the city is prohibited from taxing under the laws and constitution of the United States. SECTION 2. 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 thirty (30) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 3 Utility Tax ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: i ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY i PASSED: day of 1999. I j APPROVED: day of 11999. I I PUBLISHED: day of 1999. 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 ICI TOrdo,anceAUtiGryTex doc 1 4 Utility Tar Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEES - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This ordinance increases the City' s fee for public works improvement plan review and inspection fees from four percent (4%) to six percent (6%) . If the developer elects to hire an outside consultant to conduct the plan review work, the fee remains at four percent (4%) . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works/Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:Councilmember CL4A� oZves, Councilmember 80-0 seconds adoption of Ordinance No. 0 0 , increasing public works improvement plan review and inspection fees to six percent (6%) , as specified. DISCUSSION: ACTION: m(' UIWA�A Council Agenda Item No. 7I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT November 15, 1999 TO: Public Works/Planning Committee FROM Public Works Director RE: Development Design Review fees As you know the Public Works Department is a participant in the review process for development permits. Under City Code our plan review fee which includes inspection is presently 4% of the estimated cost of all Public Works improvements associated with a new development. This includes such improvements as streets, street lighting system, storm drainage systems(public and private) and utilities. This year we are projecting to generate over $500,000 therefrom. Unfortunately when you add up all the pieces of individuals time involved in the process we estimate that there is equivalent to 18 FTEs. This is not counting the 3 unfilled mid-year approved positions or the 2 FTEs in the Operations Division. The total cost therefore using 18 FTEs times $60,000 per year (salary and benefits) equals $1,080,000. The Public Works Department is recommending that the percentage be increased to 6%. In a good year like this year this would increase our revenues by another $250,000 however, thus far it still would not cover our total costs. It would though lessen the permit process subsidy from the General Fund. I have attached the necessary proposed ordinance herewith. It should be noted that in the Ordinance if we use a consultant to review the plans the fee would be reduced to 4%. The developer however would incur the consultant's fees for the review of the plans. Because an ordinance requires a 30-day affective period after passage and per I-695 the affective date for same needs to be prior to December 3 1" or a vote of the citizens is required, I have taken the liberty to place this item on your November 161h council agenda for action. MOTION: Recommend passage to full Council of the ordinance raising the Public Works Plan Review Fees as noted above. MP9099 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Section 6.03.010 of the Kent City Code increasing charges and modifying requirements relating to public works improvement plan approval and inspection fees. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, i DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 6.03.010 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: See. 6.03.010. Fees designated. A. The public works department shall be responsible for the plan review, plan approval, inspection and acceptance of all public works improvements, such as streets, sidewalks and walkways, street lighting systems, storm drainage systems (public and private) and utilities, and shall make a charge therefore to the developer. As used in this section, the term, "developer," shall not apply to public works improvements i constructed by another agency of the state, including counties, other cities, or special purpose districts. The charge shall be fear (4) six 6 percent of the estimated construction cost of said improvements. In all cases, the minimum fee shall be no less than five hundred dollars ($500). The developer will be required to submit separate cost estimates for each item of improvement. These will be checked by the public 1 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees works department for accuracy. Alternatively, the developer may, at its option, hire an outside consultant to conduct plan review for the city, subject to the citv's prior written approval of the selected consultant If the developer hires an outside consultant for plan review, the fee established herein will be reduced from six (6) percent to four (4) percent. Monies derived from the above charges shall be deposited to the general fund of the city. A nonrefundable deposit of fifty (50) percent of the total fee is due and payable prior to starting the review with balance due and payable prior to the approval of the construction plans. B. Two (2) re-reviews of the construction plans are included in the above-noted fee. Any additional re-reviews which are attributed to the developer's action or inaction shall be charged at a rate of fifty dollars ($50) per hour. SECTION 2. Kent City Code Section 6.03.010, which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION3. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR i i i 2 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i� APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1999. APPROVED: day of 11999. PUBLISHED: day of 1999. 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) I BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\Civil\Ordfnence\IryrovePlan-InspecsFees.doc III III I 3 Improvement Plan Approval and Inspection Fees Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 . 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: FIRE, BUILDING CODES AND FIREWORKDS FEE SCHEDULE - ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council has, by Resolution 1511, previously adopted a schedule of fees for permits under the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and the Uniform Fire Code . The proposed Resolution would establish a new schedule of fees, consolidate those fees with other related Fire Code fees, and establish uniform hourly rates as set forth in the Uniform Codes . The proposed Ordinance relating to fireworks removes the esta- blished fireworks fee set forth in the Kent City Code, which is now included in the proposed Resolution, and makes other changes to the Fireworks Code relating to penalty provisions for unauthorized discharge of fireworks . The proposed ordi- nance and Resolution are considered together due to the re- establishment of the fireworks fees from the City Code to the fee schedule resolution. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and resolution 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 b"W seconds jt adoption of Ordinance No. _✓q _1 , amending Chapter 13 . 05 of the Kent City Code relating to the feor fireworks and making other related amendmentsvc�+d MC Councilmember moves, Councilmember &0' seconds O x. passage of Resolution No. 1559_, adopting a new schedule of fees for permits under the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and other related codes . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7J ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 13.05 of the Kent City Code relating to fees for fireworks permits and making other related amendments. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 13.05 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 13.05.005010. Sale and discharge off reworks. A. Except as may be provided in RCW 70.77.311, no common fireworks shall be sold within the municipal limits of the city except from 12:00 noon on the twenty- eighth day of June to 11:00 p.m. on the fourth day of July between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. No common fireworks may be discharged at any time except between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on the fourth day of July. B. The sale or discharge of common fireworks shall not be permitted on December 31 of any given year and on January 1 of the subsequent year. The only legal period for the sale and discharge of common fireworks are the dates and times permitted in subsection (A). Sec. 13.05.049020. Local fireworks permits. Application for all local fireworks permits required by the state fireworks law, Chapter 70.77 RCW, shall be made to the fire marshal. The fee for such permit shall be established by city council 1 Fireworks Fees resolution , which amount covers the city's administrative costs for permit processing, issuance, and inspection. Pursuant to RCW 70.77.555, this permit fee and the costs for all needed permits and local licenses from application to and through processing, issuance and inspection shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for any one (1) year. Sec. 13.05.045030. Public display of fireworks. The fire marshal is authorized, pursuant to RCW 70.77.280, to issue a permit for a public display of fireworks. After review and investigation of an application for a permit, the fire marshal may grant, deny or grant with reasonable conditions a permit for a public display of fireworks; provided, however, that any such permit shall only be issued for the discharge of fireworks (1) on the fourth of July for fourth of July ceremonies; or (2) for high school homecoming games. The issuance of a permit for a public display of fireworks for a time or purpose different than stated herein is not permitted unless approved by the city council following consideration of the review, investigation and recommendation of the fire marshal. For purposes of this section, "school" means a state certified public or private high school. I Sec. 13.05.040. Reckless discharge or use of fireworks. It is unlawful for anv person to discharge or use fireworks in a reckless manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical iniury to another person or damage to the property of another. Sec. 13.05.030050. Penalty. Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13.05.010. n _ a :r. o c._ ... _v e :« e ..:_ a .. KCC i 13.05.04�0020, and 13.05.04-5030 herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days and a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). Any person violating the provisions of KCC 13.05.040 herein shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment not to exceed one (1) year and a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5.000). A person is guilty of a separate offense for each day during which he or she commits, 2 Fireworks Fees continues or permits a violation of the provisions of this chaapter.KCC "cc�rvToec tom i�-nvcic Tno- -a-r SECTION 2. 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 thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided bylaw. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: �I ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 1999. APPROVED: day of ' 1999. PUBLISHED: day of 1999. 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. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK(SEAL) P".0 ivilOMinan¢FircworksFm.doc 3 Fireworks Fees RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adopting a new schedule of fees for permits under the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and related codes. WHEREAS, Sections 13.02.020 and 14.01.070 authorize the City Council, by resolution, to establish a schedule of fees applicable to permits and inspections under the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and the Uniform Fire Code; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to adjust the fees previously adopted by Resolution No. 1511 relating to these codes and to consolidate other related fees; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Fees established. The following schedules of fees shall govern the monetary charges assessed by City departments for reviewing and processing of permit applications and issuing of permits under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire, and related codes: A. Building permit fees. Pursuant to Section 14.01.070 of the Kent City Code, Table 1-A of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code establishing 1 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes building permit fees (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is hereby adopted as the City of Kent's building permit fee schedule, with the following modifications: 1. Basic plan review fees. The basic plan review fee, after and in addition to the payment of the initial plan review fee set forth in Section 108.3 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, shall be a fee of $50.00 for each permit issued upon a certified basic plan. Additional plan review fees shall also be assessed at an hourly rate as set forth in Table 1-A for additional plan review required for changes, additions, or revisions to plans. 2. Administration of basic plans. Basic plans shall be administered to as follows: a. "Basic plans" are denied as complete plans for an entire detached single family residential building, approved as such by the building official, which: (i) Are clearly marked as being approved and certified as basics by the building official; (ii) Bear the author's (including but not limited to architect, engineer, or others) acknowledgment and approval of the plans submitted for use in the construction of a number of buildings, without any limitation of quantity or location. If any portion is designed by a licensed architect or engineer, this acknowledgment shall bear the author's stamp and signature. (iii) Basic plan review fees shall apply only to detached single family residential buildings and shall apply only to the originating owner or applicant. (iv) Changes to basic plans which alter the exterior dimensions or structure of the building shall be treated as a new permit application. 2 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes b. The process for administering basic plans shall be as follows: (i) Any person may apply for plan review and certification of a basic by filing with the building official a written request for such plan review and certification, along with two or more complete sets of plans and the normal plan review fee. (ii) Upon completion and approval of plan review, the applicant shall provide reproducible copies of complete approved plans to the building official. C. The City building official is authorized and empowered to interpret and determine the applicability and administration of the provisions of this resolution. 3. The hourly rates set forth in sections 1 — 4 under the heading of"Other Inspections and Fees" in Table 1-A, Exhibit A, is changed from $47.00 per hour to $75.00 per hour. Further, Section 5, as well as the footnotes of Table 1-A, are deleted. B. Mechanical permit and plan review fees. Pursuant to Section 14.01.070 of the Kent City Code, Table 1-A of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code establishing mechanical permit fees (attached hereto as Exhibit B) is hereby adopted as the City of Kent's mechanical permit fee schedule, except that the hourly rates set forth in sections 1 — 4 under the heading of "Other Inspections and Fees" in Table 1-A, Exhibit B, is changed from $49.50 per hour to $75.00 per hour. Further, the footnote of Table 1-A is deleted. C. Plumbing permit fees. Pursuant to Section 14.01.070 of the Kent City Code, Table 1-1 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code establishing plumbing permit fees (attached hereto as Exhibit C) is hereby adopted as the City of Kent's plumbing permit fee schedule, except that the hourly rates set forth in sections 1 — 4 under the heading of "Other Inspections and Fees" in Table 1-1, Exhibit C, is changed from $30.00 per hour to $75.00 per hour. Further, the footnote of Table 1-1 is deleted. 3 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes D. Fire permit fees. Pursuant to Section 13.02.020 of the Kent City Code, the following fee schedule is hereby adopted for fire permits or certificates issued by the Kent Fire Department: 1. Uniform Fire Code permit fees. Fire permits issued under the Uniform Fire Code shall be $50.00 per permit per year. 2. Initial Fire and Life Safety inspections. The fee for initial Fire and Life Safety inspections for new businesses shall be $50.00 per application. 3. Fire protection system permit. The fee for fire protection system permits issued under the Uniform fire Code shall be $50.00 per building per year. 4. False Fire Alarm Fee. The fee for repeated false fire alarm incidents for the same location during any given 12 month period shall be as follows: First two false alarm responses are at no charge. 3td false alarm $50.00 41h false alarm $75.00 51h false alarm and any thereafter $100.00 5. Hydrant flow requests. The fee for fire hydrant flow requests shall be $75.00 per hour. 6. Residential home heating fuel tank removal. The fee for residential home heating fuel tank removal permits shall be $50.00 per application. 7. Fireworks fees. a. The fee for fireworks permits for fireworks stands shall be $100.00 per application. b. The fee for fireworks displays shall be $10.00 per application. 8. Construction reinspection, Uniform Fire Code reinspection, and Fire and Life safety reinspection. A reinspection fee in the amount of $75.00 per hour may be assessed for each reinspection when such portion of work for which initial inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not made. 4 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes This section is not to be interpreted as requiring reinspection fees the first time a job is rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code or Kent City Code Chapters 13.02, Fire Codes, 13.03, Fire Suppression Systems, 13.04, Fire Hydrants, and 13.05, Fireworks, but as controlling the practice of calling for inspections before the job is ready for such inspection or reinspection. Reinspection fees may be assessed when the inspection record card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, the approved plans are not readily available to the inspector, for failure to provide access on the date for which inspection is requested, or for deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building official. To obtain a reinspection, the applicant shall file an application therefor in writing on a form famished for that purpose and pay the reinspection fee for said reinspection. In instances where reinspection fees have been assessed, no additional inspection of the work will be performed until the required fees have been paid. SECTION 2. Repealed. Resolution No. 1511 is hereby repealed in its entirety on the effective date of this resolution. 5 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes SECTION 3. Effective Date. The effective date of this resolution shall be the effective date of the ordinance considered concurrently with this resolution amending Chapter 13.05 of the Kent City code relating to fees for fireworks and other related amendments. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by 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, the day of , 1999. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\C-Mesolutwn\pv(o�odc doc e 6 Adopting Fees Under the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Codes TABLE 1-A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE S L00 to S500.00 S23.50 S501.00 to S2.000.00 S23.50 for the first 5500.00 plus S3.05 for each additional SI00.00,or fraction thereof,to and including$2,000.00 S2,001.00 to S25,000.00 S69.25 for the first S2,000.00 plus S 14.00 for each additional$1,000.00,or fraction thereof,to and including S25.000.00 S25,001.00 to S50.000.00 S391.25 for the first S25.000.00 plus S 10.10 for each additional S 1,000.00,or fraction thereof, to and including S50.000.00 S50.001.00 to S 100,000.00 S643.75 for the first 550,000.00 plus SZ00 for each additional S I.000.00,or fraction thereof, to and including$100.000.00 S 100.001.00 to S500,000.00 S993.75 for the first S 104C00.00 plus S5.60 for each additional S 1,000.00,or fraction thereof, to and including S500.000.00 )0,001.00 to S I.000,000.00 S3.233.75 for the first S500,000.00 plus S4.75 for each additional SI,000.00,or fraction thereof.to and including S1,000,000.00 S 1,000,001.00 and up S5,608.75 for the first S 1,000,000.00 plus S3.15 for each additional S 1,000.00,or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fes: I. Inspections outside of normal business hours ............................... ........................................ S47.00 per hourl (minimum charge—two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305.8 ... ....................................................... S47.00 per hour] 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated ................. .......................... ...................... S47.00 per hourl (minimum charge-one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes,additions or revisions to plans ............................................... S47.00 per hour] (minimum charge—one-half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections.or both . ...... ........... .................. .. .............. Actual costs' tOr the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision,overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. '-Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. i-6 EXHIBIT .=' TABLE 1-A 1997 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE TABLE 1-A--MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES _ Permit Issuance and Heaters 1. For the issuance of each mechanical permit................................................................................... $23.50 2. For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original permit has not expired,been canceled or 6naled................................. 7.25 Unit Fee Schedule (Note:The following do not include permit-issuing fee.) 1. Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner,including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 BtWh(29.3 kW) .................................................................................. 14.80 For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner,including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btufh(29.3 kW) .............................................................................................. 18-20 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace,including vent ....... -- For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater,recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater ................................ 14.8o 2. Appliance Vents For the installation,relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit ......................... 7.25 3. Repairs or Additions For the repair of,alteration of,or addition to each heating appliance,refrigeration unit,cooling unit,absorption unit,or each heating,cooling, - absorption or evaporative cooling system,including installation of controls re-gidated by the Mechanical Code .............................. 13.70 4, Boilers,Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 horsepower(10.6 kW),or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btulh(29.3 kW)....................................................................................... 14.70 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower(10.6 kW)to and including 15 horsepower(52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 BtWh(29.3 kW)to and including 500,000 Btulh(146.6 kW)...................................... 27.15 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower(52.7 kW)to and including 30 horsepower(1055 kW), or each absorption system over 500,000 Btulh(146.6 kW)to and including 1,000,000&Wh(293.1 kW) ................................... 37.25 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower(105.5 kW)to and including 50 horsepower(176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btulb(293.1 kW)to and including 1,750,000 Btulh(512.9 kW).................................. 55.45 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower(176 kW),or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Budh(512.9 kW) ............................................................................................... 92.65 5. Air Handlers For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute(cfm)(4719 L/s),including ducts attached thereto 10.65 `tote:This fee does not apply to an air-handling unit which is a portion of a factory-assembled appliance,cooling unit,evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 chin 4719 US ...................................... 18.10 -� 6. Evaporative Coolers ' For each evaporative cooler other than portable type 10.65 7. Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct ............................................................................... 7.25 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit 10.65 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust,including the ducts for suchhood ........................................ .............................................. ........................ 10.65 8. Incinerators For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator ............................. ...................................: 18.20 For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type incinerator ...... ............................................... 1450 9. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but act classed in other appliance categories,or for which no other fee is listed in the table .............. ... .. .... . .. ... ............... ............ ..................................... 10.65 Other Inspections and Fees: L Inspections outside of normal business hours,per hour(minimum charge-two hours) ............................................... S49.50' '-. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 116.6.per inspection .... ................................................... S49.50- 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated,per hour(minimum charge- one-half hour) ...................................... S49.50' 1. Additional plan review required by changes,additions or revisions to plans or to olans for which an initial review has been completed (minimum chargc­one-half hour) ...... .. ....... ... ........ ............ ...................................__............ $49.50- 'Or the iota] hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest This cost shall include supervision,overhead,equipment, hourly wages and tnnge benefits of the employees involved. EXHIBIT Table 1-1 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE TABLE 1-1 Plumbing Permit Fees Permit Issuance 1. For issuing each permit.....................................................................................................................$20.00 2. For issuing each supplemental permit...............................................................................................$10,00 Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to items 1 and 2 above) 1. For each plumbing fixture on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefor) ..............................................................................$7.00 2. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer........................................................................$15.00 3. Rainwater systems-per drain (inside building)..................................................................................$7.00 4. For each cesspool (where permitted)...........................,,..................................................................$25.00 5. For each private sewage disposal system ........................................................................................$40.00 6. For each water heater and/or vent......................................................................................................$7.00 7. For each gas-piping system of one to five outlets...............................................................................$5.00 S. For each additional gas piping system outlet, per outlet.....................................................................$1.00 9. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps...................................................$7.00 10. For each installation, alteration or repair of water piping and/or water treating equipment, each.......$7.00 11. For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture..................................................$7.00 12. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices therefor....$7.00 13. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in item 12: 1 to 5.............................................................................................................................................$5.00 over5, each..................................................................................................................................$1.00 14. For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers: 2 inch (51 mm) diameter and smaller ..........................................................................................$7.00 over 2 inch (51 Trim) diameter.....................................................................................................$15.00 15. For each graywater system...............................................................................................................$40.00 16. For initial installation and testing for a reclaimed water system ........................................................$30.00' 17. For each annual cross-connection testing of a reclaimed water system (excluding initial test)........$30.00' 18. For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlet(s)/oudet(s) for a specific gas.............$50.00 19. For each additional medical gas inlet(s)/outlet(s).............................................................................. $5.00 Other Inspections and Fees 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours ..................................................................................$30.00' 2. Reinspection fee................................................................................................................................$30.00 3. Inspections Tor whicn no tee is specdicaiiy indicated ........................................................................$30.00' 4. Additional clan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans (minimum charge-one-half hour) .......................................................$30.00' 'Per hour for each hour worked or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is greater. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of all the employees involved. 8 EXHIBIT Y. y Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: BILLBOARD REGULATION AMENDMENT/OFF-PREMISES SIGNS AMENDMENT ZCA-99-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On April 12 , 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the City Council regarding the regulations of billboards . The Board' s recommendation is for a "no net gain" policy on billboards that allows the existing signs to continue but disallows new billboards . This recommendation was forwarded to the City Council Planning & Public Works Committee in May 1999 . Following the Committee ' s review, the matter was referred back to the Board who confirmed their original recommendation. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated 11/16/99; Exhibit A (zoning code text recommendations) ; Staff report dated 8/9/99, ; Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 4/12/99 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/modify/deny the recommendation of the Land Use & Planning Board regarding off-premise sign regulations and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7K CITY OF ) 1�1 i rNVICTA Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (2S3) 856-5454/FAX(253) 356-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16, 1999 MEMO TO: MAYOR WHITE AND MEMBERS OF THE KENT CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIANA C. NELSON, PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA -99-2 OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION In the past two years, concern has been expressed by members of the City Council about the potential for proliferation of billboards along the new 272n'/ 277`h and 192"d/ 196`h Street corridors as well as other major arterials in the City. The City Council requested that the Planning Department study the issue of billboard signs and prepare information for review by the Land Use and Planning Board. (When this report refers to billboards, it is also referring to off- premise signs). The Planning Department staff presented information to the Land Use and Planning Board during Board work sessions on February 8, March 8 and March 22, 1999. The information included a number of options addressing off-premise signs. These options ranged from "Do Nothing" to a complete ban on all off-premise signs including the amortization and removal of all existing billboards within a set time period. The Land Use and Planning Board chose to address the issue by taking a "no net gain" approach, which would allow legally existing billboards to remain, be repaired or replaced, but would not allow any additional new _ billboards to be constructed. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing on April 12, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the zoning code regarding off-premise signs. "041h -A%If. SO.. / KENT. 1i ASHISGTON"011 <.o�/TCLEPIIO,NG i]�?i Sib-i'On Billboard/Off-Premise Sign Code Amendment November 16, 1999 Page 2 The Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation went to the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee on May 3, 1999. During the committee meeting, questions were raised about amortization and removal of billboards. The discussion was postponed until the June 7, 1999 meeting to allow planning staff time to research the amortization costs. On June 7, 1999, Planning Department staff provided the Planning and Public Works Committee with cost data for recent billboard construction and discussed the type of data needed to create an amortization schedule. During the meeting, the outdoor advertising sign industry and citizens provided testimony. The committee members voted to create a billboard "task-force" to discuss alternatives. No action was taken on the task-force discussions, due to procedural concerns. Upon request by the City Council President, the proposed sign code amendment was returned to the Land Use and Planning Board to review the billboard issue to determine if any new information had arisen that would affect their recommendation. At the August 9, 1999 workshop, the Land Use and Planning Board re-visited their original recommendations in light of several issues, which had potential impact on their recommendation of the sign code amendment, including amortization, tri-vision billboard faces constructed without permits, removal of derelict and abandoned signs, and the request by one outdoor advertising sign company to abandon the proposed amendment and begin discussion/negotiations between the City and the sign industry to create an altemative(s) to the current amendment proposal. The Land Use and Planning Board did not change their recommendation; however, they did request that the City Council examine the issues of derelict and abandoned signs and tri-vision billboards. During the August 16, 1999 Public Works and Planning Committee meeting, several citizens addressed the committee regarding billboards and requested a public hearing be held by the committee. The committee intended to schedule a date the public hearing at their September 8, 1999 meeting, however, one of the same citizens appeared at the September 7, 1999 City Council meeting to request that the billboard issue be placed on that evening's agenda. The Council decided to place the issue on the council agenda for mid-November and consequently, the Public Works and Planning Committee did not schedule a hearing date. BACKGROUND The current City of Kent Zoning Code classifies billboards as off-premise signs and Kent City Code (KCC) Section 15.06.040(R) allows off-premise signs only in zoning districts M1, M2 and M3 subject to certain standards. However, there are a number of billboards located in commercial zones and one located in a residential zone in the City. These billboards do not conform to the zone for a variety of reasons including the sign predating the 1973 sign code and zone changes by the City from industrial to commercial zoning. The Planning Department staff has created a photographic inventory of all existing billboards within the City limits as well as within the Potential Annexation Area. Billboard locations have been mapped and a database has been compiled on various sign characteristics. This information provides specific data about the number and type of billboards in the City, thereby helping to better understand the impacts of billboards on the community. Billboard/Off-Premise Sign Code Amendment November 16, 1999 Page 3 BILLBOARD IMPACTS Billboards are designed, built and leased in order to attract public attention. When billboards are located within the visibility of a roadway, the effect is to draw drivers' attention to the outdoor advertising, thereby distracting their focus away from the road. A 1980 Federal Highway Administration study on the effects of billboards on highway safety found a positive correlation between the existence of billboards and accident rates. Federal and state courts have consistently ruled that traffic safety is a legitimate basis for billboard regulation. Based on these court rulings, ajurisdiction is not required to document specific negative impacts of billboards in their community in order to regulate, restrict or prohibit billboards, provided that the intent of the ordinance is to further the community's interests in traffic safety and aesthetics. NEED FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS The City of Kent has 45 billboards located within the City limits. Approximately 64% of the billboards are located in M1, M2, and M3 zones, the zones that currently allow placement of billboards. Approximately 50% of the billboards were permitted by the City since the sign code was adopted. Approximately 55% of the billboards do not meet the current sign standards for height, size, etc. Some of the billboards pre-date the 1973 sign code or were constructed under King County regulations prior to being annexed into the city. Approximately 98% of the billboards are in good repair, although occasionally some have torn or missing sign text. Within the last two years, approximately 20% of the billboards have been altered from a stationary billboard face to a revolving tri-vision billboard face, without permits. The current City of Kent Zoning Code Section 15.06.040(R) allows new off-premise signs to be located in the M1, M2 and M3 industrial zones at a spacing of 4 billboards per 1,000 lineal feet. The implications of this provision is that under the potential maximum "build-out" for off- premise signs, approximately 44 billboards could be placed along the 192nd/196`h Street corridor, 40 billboards along East Valley Highway between 212`h and the City limits at 180", 44 billboards along the 212`h/216`h corridor and 6 billboards along S. 277`h between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and SR 167. The current code allows the potential for the placement of 134 billboards along 4 major transportation arterials within the City. This enormous number of potential billboards does not take into consideration the remaining 4,000+ acres of M1, M2 and M3 industrial zoned land in the valley that could potentially have 4 billboards for every 1,000 lineal feet of roadway, nor the potential number of billboards which could be constructed under state and City regulations along the two state highways that run through the industrial zones of the Kent valley. The negative effects on traffic safety and community aesthetics of the placement of this potential number of billboards along major arterials cannot be disputed since by their very nature and intended purpose, billboards are distracting to drivers' attention to traffic. The size and height of billboards and the currently allowed density of placement significantly contributes to visual clutter throughout the city. Billboard/Off-Premise Sign Code Amendment November 16, 1999 — Page 4 The Planning staff surveyed a number of cities in the Seattle metropolitan area regarding their policies on billboards. Most cities prohibit new billboards including Renton, Des Moines, Federal Way, Sea Tac and Seattle, as well as King County. Many of these jurisdictions, including Renton, Des Moines, Tumwater, Bellevue, Issaquah, Edgewood, Lacey, and Mountlake Terrace, "grandfathered" existing billboards and allow repair of existing billboards within certain parameters, but do not allow replacement or relocation. Cities such as Bellingham and Lakewood as well as King County allow replacement and/or relocation of billboards within strict limitations. All of the above jurisdictions have taken a "cap" or "no net gain" approach to billboard advertising signs; thereby placing a limit on the total number of billboards allowed to exist in their jurisdiction. PLANNING RECOMMENDATION: The Land Use and Planning Board recommends approval of the attached zoning code amendment text (see Exhibit A). The Land Use and Planning Board further recommends that the City Council examine the issues of(1) derelict or abandoned signs; and (2) existing tri-vision billboards. Staff from the Planning Department will be prepared to present this issue and answer questions at the November 16, 1999 meeting. If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please contact Diana Nelson at (253) 856-5437. DN:pm P:IADMIMbillboardstaffcc.doc Enclosure cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations James P. Harris,Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom,Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner—Long Range Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner—Current Planning 4 EXHIBIT A Text of Land Use & Planning Board's Recommendation on Revised Off-premise Sign Regulations (April 12, 1999 and August 9, 1999) Kent Zoning Code Section 15.02.430. Sign, off-premises. "Off-premises sign means a sign w4ie4 that contains a message or directs attention to a business, profession, product, activity, or service that is not e"related to a" use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located excluding road directional signs, and is generally_available by means of rental to persons other than the owner of the sign". Kent Zoning Code Section 15.06.040 R. Off-premises signs. 1. !'Real feet ...8 pe ffnitt„a, No new off-premise signs shall be constructed or installed within the city. The total number of off-premise sign structures and faces allowed within the incorporated city limits of Kent shall not exceed the total number of legally existing off-premise sign structures and faces as of the effective date of this code and listed in the City of Kent Off-Premise Sign Inventory. Off-premise signs in existence as of the effective date of this requirement shall be inventoried. 2. nist4ets where peFmitted. Off pFeFnises sigRs aFe peFFAitted in M! M2 and M3 distFiGts They:—are net permitted in any—ether- d:striet. Except as provided in Subsection 15.06.040(R)(3). off-premise signs shall not be altered with regard to size, shape. orientation, height, or location without the Prior issuance of a sign permit. Alterations or replacements of off-premise signs shall comply with the design and location standards of this section. 3 Standards. a. Afamingum size. Maximum size is three hundred (300) square feet for a total of all sign faces on one structure. b. #4aj6mum he@hl� Maximum height is thirty-five (35) feet. C. . Signs shall be located a distance of three hundred (300) feet from any street intersection. d Deuble fased kjns Back-to-back and V-type sign structures shall be considered one (1) sign structure. Exhibit A Revised Off-Premise Sign Regulations November 16, 1999 Page 2 e No off-premise sign shall extend beyond the property line of the sign site. f Off-premise signs shall observe the same setbacks as buildings within the zone. Cl. Off-premise signs shall not rotate or have parts that move, revolve or rotate. h. Off-premise signs shall not utilize interior illumination, electronic, or digital video displays including. but not limited to flashing, blinking or scrolling lights, animation, or other moving messages or display. i. Off-premise signs may utilize stationary exterior lighting focused on the sign face. i. Repair, alteration, or replacement of an existing off-premise sign structure requires a building and zoning permit. Replacement of off- premise sign face copy may occur at any time and is exempt from the requirement for a permit provided that the size of the face copy does not exceed the previous face coov and is no greater than 300 souare feet in size, and provided that the number of sign faces does not exceed the previous number of sign faces. 4 Sign faces that contain moving parts and that are located on a legally existino sign structure shall be considered non-conforming and the sign face(s) with moving parts shall be removed or replaced with a stationary sign face in compliance with the standards of subsection 15.06.040(R)(3). within five (5) years of the effective date of this ordinance. 5 Off-premise signs shall not be relocated to another parcel of land. Off- premise signs can only be relocated to another portion of the parcel on which the sign is located, only in response to the design standards required in subsection 15.06.040(R)(3) and with approval of the Planning Director. 6 Off-premise signs located on vacant land that is being developed shall be removed upon expiration of the lease(s), which are in effect at the time of proiect permit application for the site. A coov of the current lease(s) shall be provided to the Planning Department as part of the proiect permit application materials. 7 No removal, cutting or other alteration of any vegetative screening on public Property or private landscaping required by code or as a condition of permit approval is permitted in order to improve the visibility of a nearby off-premise sign. This regulation shall not prohibit the normal maintenance of trees and landscaping, 8 All off-premise signs, which have a permit as of the date of this Ordinance or which were in existence prior to June 20, 1973, shall be considered legal and may be rebuilt in the case of destruction by natural cause or accident or for safety purposes. P:IADMINIbillboardstaff6 Exhibit A.doc CITY OF %Z;,,LJL� rNVICTA 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 AUGUST 9, 1999 MEMO TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: DIANA C. NELSON, PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA -99-2 OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT The Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend approval of the following amendments to the zoning code at their April 12, 1999 public hearing. (The text of the Board's proposed recommendation is attached as Exhibit A). The Board's recommendation went to the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee on May 3, 1999. During the committee meeting, questions were raised about the issue of amortization of billboards. Further discussion of the proposed amendment was then postponed until June 7, 1999 to allow planning staff time to research billboard amortization issues (see May 3, 1999 minutes attached). In response to the City Council Public Works and Planning Committee's directive, the Planning Department staff investigated the permits issued for billboard signs in the last 4 years and discovered that the two most recently issued billboard sign permits (1999 and 1997) established the construction value of a single-sided billboard at $5,000. The cost of constructing a billboard sign is one of several expenses that should be amortized. Planning staff also wrote letters to AK Media/ NW and Lamar Outdoor Advertising, the two outdoor advertising companies that own 93% of all the billboard signs within the City of Kent, requesting additional information about the other costs associated with locating and constructing a billboard sign. The Planning Department has not received any response to the letters. During the June 7, 1999 Planning and Public Works Committee meeting, the outdoor advertising sign industry and citizens provided testimony. The committee members discussed a number of issues and voted to postpone the consideration of the Board's recommendation on the proposed off-premise sign code amendment until the first Planning and Public Works Committee meeting in July. The Committee voted to direct planning staff to work with the outdoor advertising sign industry and several appointed citizens to create a "win-win" solution to billboard regulation. The Committee also voted to allow the Committee Chair to appoint three citizens to a billboard "task-force". The "n-ih VA E. S!)., i KENT Vc.ASIII,CGTIri�wv�:�-;soy TH FPHI \= #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Signs Zoning Code Amendment August 9, 1999 Page 2 direction from the Committee to this group was to discuss and examine the following issues or parameters: a) Decreasing the overall number of billboard sites and locations while maintaining the current number of sign faces. b) Favor sign locations/ concentrations in the M1-M3 zones c) Eliminate billboards from clearly residential neighborhoods d) Discuss an acceptable amortization schedule In addition to these ideas, some members of the Committee also wanted a review of the visual proximity of tri-vision billboards to intersections (within sight of a major intersection) and the development of methods to deal with unsightly, derelict or abandoned off-premise signs. Since June 7, 1999, no action has been taken on the proposed billboard amendment or on the billboard task-force discussions. The Planning Director sent the Land Use and Planning Board a memo on July 12, 1999 about the status of the billboard amendment. The memo relayed a request by Leona Orr, the City Council President, asking the Land Use and Planning Board to review the billboard issue to determine if any new information has arisen, from their perspective, that would be germane to the subject. Based on this request, the off-premise sign amendment is again on your agenda for consideration. Planning staff feels that the following issues, which could substantially affect the nature of the sign code amendment, have been raised since the Land Use and Planning Board last reviewed the off-premise sign code amendment. Each of these issues could potentially involve considerable revision of the proposed off-premise sign amendment. These issues are as follows: 1. Amortization of all billboards in the City over a not-yet determined period of time. The issue of amortization (and the eventual removal) of all billboards in the City is in direct contrast to the current amendment proposal which would allow legally existing billboards to remain indefinitely. Presently the City does not have sufficient information about all of the costs associated with locating and constructing a billboard to determine the appropriate amortization period for billboard signs. 2. Request by outdoor advertising sign company to abandon the proposed amendment and begin discussions/negotiations between the city and the sign industry to create a preferable alternative(s) to the current amendment proposal. This request made by AK Media/ NW to the Planning and Public Works Committee is , the same request previously made to the Land Use and Planning Board. The outdoor advertising sign companies have not made any specific suggestions or alternative proposals on sign retention, relocation, etc. that would be more acceptable to their industry, other than the possibility of reducing the total number of billboard locations if 1) #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Signs Zoning Code Amendment August 9, 1999 Page 3 allowed to locate two 300 square foot billboard faces back-to-back on the same sign structure and/or be allowed to continue to utilize tri-vision billboards. 3. Determination by the Kent Building Official that the alteration of a stationary billboard face(s) to create a tri-vision billboard requires a building permit in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Section 106.1. The current amendment proposal considers sign faces with moving parts (tri-vision billboards) to be non-conforming and allows a five-year period for the signs to be removed or converted to stationary sign faces. This portion of the amendment was written with the presumption that all of the sign faces were legally permitted and that the recent conversion of a number of stationary billboards to tri-vision billboards had been done with all of the appropriate building and development permits. However, during the investigation of the amortization issue it was discovered that no permits for the alteration of a stationary billboard to a tri-vision billboard or the construction of a tri- vision billboard have been issued since the inception of the computerized permit system in 1993. Bob Hutchinson, the Kent Building Official, has determined that Section 106.1 of the Uniform Building Code requires a building permit for the construction, alteration, improvement or conversion of any structure, including a billboard sign (see Section 106.1 attached). In light of this information, the Board may wish to revise the amendment by eliminating the current provision for the 5-year tri-vision billboard conversion period or by changing the language of Section 15.06.040 (R)(4) to read "Legally existing sign faces that contain moving parts...". 4. Removal of derelict and abandoned billboards and other off-premise signs Currently there are no provisions in the sign code amendment that deal with the aesthetics of signs or require the removal of derelict or vacant billboard structures. However, the zoning code requires that non-conforming signs which have been abandoned be removed within ninety (90) days. This provision does not apply to conforming billboards (in M1-M3 zones) or signs, which have not been abandoned but do not currently have a sign face attached, have a ripped or tattered sign face or whose structure is in poor condition. The Board could choose to add language to the standards section that would require off-premise signs to be maintained so that the sign face and structure are in good condition at all times. The review of these issues by the Land Use and Planning Board is to determine whether the proposed sign code amendment should be revised to address any of the above issues and if so, how the amendment should be revised. Staff from the Planning Department will be prepared to present this issue and answer questions at the August 9, 1999 meeting. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact Diana Nelson at (253) 856-5437. DN:pm P:�ADM=billboardstaffEdoc Enclosure cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations James P. Harris, Planning Director 3 #ZCA-99-2 Off-Premise Signs Zoning Code Amendment August 9, 1999 _ Page 4 Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner— Long Range Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner— Current Planning 4 �L`j- ciry or :.2,%J��� Jim White, Mayor ry V ICSA Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Harris, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing April 12, 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 12, 1999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Diana Nelson, Planner Terry Zimmerman, Vice Chair Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney Brad Bell Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Steve Dowell Jon Johnson _ David Malik Sharon Woodford APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to approve the minutes of March 22, 1999. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director James Harris announced that a hearing would not be held on Monday, April 25, 1999. He stated that the next meeting would be a Land Use and Planning Board workshop on May 10. ZCA-99-2 BILLBOARD REGULATIONS AMENDMENT Planner Diana Nelson stated that this issue pertains to off-premise signs zoning code amendment. She indicated the following typing corrections and language changes in her staff report: 1. In the second paragraph under"BACKGROUND"the City of Kent Zoning Code Section was typed as "Section 42.06.040(R)" and should have read"Section 15.06.040(R)." This same error occurred in the first line under"NEED FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS." 2204th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 2 2. On the first page of the text amendment, the last sentence under "R. Off-Premise signs. (1)" should be underlined as an additional new sentence to be added to the current code. 3. Item number six on the second page of the text amendment should read "Off-premise signs located on vacant land that is being developed shall be removed the eff premise sigR upon expiration of the lease(s)..." 4. Item number eight has an additional phrase added after the word"Ordinance"that says "or which were in existence prior to June 20, 1973..." Diana Nelson stated that in June 1973 the Kent City Council approved Ordinance 1827 adopting a new zoning code that included a subsection on off-premise signs. She stated that this section has remained virtually unchanged for 26 years. Ms. Nelson said that the Kent Zoning Code categorizes off-premise signs as signs not located on the same premises as the business, product, and activity or service identified or advertised by such sign. Ms. Nelson stated that the current Kent Zoning Code allows off-premise signs in the M-1,M-2 and M-3 zoning districts only. She stated that the Planning department staff created a photographic inventory of all existing billboards within the city limits and the potential annexation area including a map of all sites and a database with sign characteristics. Ms. Nelson stated that the inventory identifies 18 billboards in commercial zones and one in a multi- family residential zone. She stated that of the 45 billboards identified, 58 percent were double sided. Ms. Nelson stated that billboards are designed,built and the space leased in order to attract public attention, particularly that of drivers. Ms. Nelson stated that state and federal courts have consistently ruled that billboards pose or contribute to traffic hazards. She stated that an ordinance that limits or eliminates billboards viewed from roadways relates to traffic safety. Ms. Nelson stated that the ongoing development of two new major traffic corridors, as well as the conditions along existing major arterials through the city, prompted discussion by city officials. Ms. Nelson stated that the City Council had concerns about additional billboards being placed in industrial zones along the new corridors. Due to their size, height and nature they are distracting to traffic and contribute to visual clutter of the city landscape. She stated that this issue was referred by the City Council to the Land Use and Planning Board and planning staff for study, review and development of an ordinance addressing these concerns. Ms. Nelson stated that planning staff surveyed a number of other cities in the Seattle Metro area and staff discovered that most of these cities prohibit new billboards. She stated that some cities have specific deadlines for removal of all billboards amortization over a period of years,while most others have grandfathered existing billboards and given them legal nonconforming status. Ms. Nelson stated that these cities allow repair but not replacement or relocation of existing billboards. She Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 3 stated that based on the City of Kent's inventory and the survey of other cities as well as discussion with the Land Use and Planning Board, Planning staff has developed a text amendment to Section 15.06.040, Subsection R. Off-Premise Signs and Section 15.02.430. definition of Off-Premise Signs. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed sign definition would read "Off-premise sign means a sign which contains a message or directs attention to a business. profession. product. activity, or service that is unrelated to any use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding road directional signs". Ms. Nelson stated that No. 1 of the proposed text amendment indicates a no net gain policy prohibiting placement of any new off-premise signs and defines legal signs within the city limits (with the exception of signs annexed from King County) as indicated in number eight of the text amendment. Ms. Nelson stated that the amendment would allow for legally existing off-premise signs to remain, be repaired and allow legally existing off-premise signs to be altered or replaced subject to certain standards. She stated that the amendment would not allow for relocation of existing signs. Ms. Nelson said that these issues are covered in No. 2 and 5 of the text amendment. Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed amendment would create additional standards for off-premise signs as indicated in number three and would clarify permitting requirements discussed in No. 2 and No. 3 j. She stated that the amendment would require amortization of moving sign faces over a period of five years. Ms. Nelson stated that this amendment would require signs on vacant land to be removed upon development of the sites as indicated in No. 6 and would restrict cutting and removal of public vegetation or required landscaping to improve the visibility of the sign as indicated in No. 7. Board member Brad Bell stated that according to the definition of off-premise signs that would appear to include real estate and campaign signs. Ms. Nelson stated that those types of signs are specifically excluded elsewhere in the sign code and would not fall under this definition. Chair Ron Harmon questioned if it would be possible to change the five-year time frame for compliance in removing moving sign faces as indicated in No. 4. Ms. Nelson indicated that the Planning Director set the five-year time frame, although consideration would be made for alternate time frames if the Board desired. Ms. Nelson stated that the Board might wish to consult with Counsel as to an appropriate length of time for meeting the compliance standards. She stated that a shorter period of time could be construed as restricting the businesses ability to amortize over a reasonable period of time; however, there would be no restrictions in lengthening the time frame beyond five years. Planning Director James Hams stated that the City of Kent allows 300 square feet of total advertising space per sign. He stated that moving face signs use more square feet of advertising space per sign as they are multi-purpose and multi-dimensional. Ron Harmon commended Planning staff for their effort in obtaining an inventory of signs within the city of Kent. Ron Harmon requested clarification that if owners did not hold valid permits for their Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 4 signs that they would be requested to tear them down. Mr. Harris concurred with Ron Harmon with the exception that if signs existed prior to implementation of the 1973 zoning code they could remain in place. Board member Steve Dowell revealed that he had a sign that had been inventoried by Planning Staff and expressed his belief that he could make an objective decision as he is familiar with the proposed amendment. He stated that he would be glad to excuse himself from the vote if anyone objected to his involvement with this issue. Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Evezich responded to an inquiry by one of the Board members regarding the limitation to local business advertising for off-premise signs. She stated that limiting business advertising for off-premise signs would violate the Interstate Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, circumvent the goal of protecting, promoting and furthering public traffic safety interests and the prevention of esthetic blight and preservation of the distinction between off and on premise signs. David Malik MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Nicole Rolfness,5626 Evergreen Lp SE,Auburn, WA thanked Planning staff for the opportunity to speak in front of the Board members. She stated that she represents A.K. Media Northwest(one of the leading billboard companies in the area) as their community relation's director. Ms. Rolfness stated that she has worked with many organizations that serve the Kent area. Ms. Rolfness stated that A. K. Media has contributed free advertising space to the Puget Sound Blood Center, Junior Achievement, Child Haven in Auburn, Northwest Bum Center, Toys for Tots and the Kent Downtown Partnership and supports the Fourth of July celebration,the summer concert series, Canterbury Faire and the holiday bazaar. She stated that A.K. Media donated over 7.5 million dollars last year in advertising space in the Northwest. Ms. Rolfriess submitted Washington State contest drawing's received from second grade students at Sunny Crest Elementary School for the record as Exhibit 1. She stated that these students participated in an art contest on how to make Kent's community safer. Ms. Rolfness stated that she is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and with the Washington Traffic Safety Administration on a billboard campaign. She expressed her believe that the use of billboards must not pose a traffic safety hazard as they are supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Rolfness stated that billboards provide affordable advertising for local businesses. She stated that A.K. Media advertises with the University of Washington Physicians,the Kent Clinic, Interwest Bank, Kent's Cameras, Aqua Quip and Boeings. Ms. Rolfness stated that some national advertisers such as Coke and the Washington Diary Commission encourage Kent citizens to drink coke or milk leading to patronization of local businesses. Ms. Rolfness stated that she would like to encourage the Board to see A.K. Media as a business that gives to the community in a manner that many companies can not surpass. Brad Bell asked Ms. Rolfness to express A.K. Media's position on planning staffs proposal. Ms. Rolfness stated her believe that the Board was not equipped to make a decision based only on a staff report and that the Board should be presented with an industry report. She stated that industries were not given opportunity for input on this proposed amendment and felt it would benefit the community to work further with staff concerning this issue. Ms. Rolfness stated that A.K. Media would like to see the amendment tabled to allow for further discussion between industry and the city. Craig Berman, 23409 NE 19th Drive,Redmond,WA stated that he is employed by MWW/Savitt a strategic communications firm in Seattle and represents A.K. Media Northwest. He reiterated some of Nicole Rolfness's concerns pertaining to code changes affecting billboard usage. Mr. Berman stated that only two structures have been erected in the City of Kent within the last two or three years (on behalf of A.K. Media) which does not contribute to the proliferation of billboard signs in Kent. Mr. Berman stated that rather than having to work from a code, MWW/Savitt would prefer the opportunity to work with planning staff and the Planning Board to look at community concerns and A.K. Media's goals and objectives in order to reach an amiable solution. Mr. Berman stated that the King County Board of Health proposed strict setback requirements(about 2 years ago) for tobacco advertising around playgrounds, schools and churches. He stated that the setbacks impacted how MWW/Savitt could carry out business as the implementation timeframe interfered with their contracts and business practices. Mr. Berman stated that MWW/Savitt negotiated with the Board of Health. He stated that as a result, his company voluntarily removed tobacco advertising from their billboards one and one half years before results of the national settlement went into affect. Mr. Berman stated that working with the Board of Health indicates their company's willingness to work with municipalities within the context of their sign codes. Mr. Berman commended Planning staff on their Herculean efforts in compiling the inventory of signs in Kent. He stated that if his company was allowed to bring their knowledge to the table and staff could recognize that some potential outcomes might not be reality. Mr. Berman indicated that state regulations have not been accounted for in the staff report section on "Need for Possible Amendments"pertaining to the number of allowable build-out for off-premise signs. He stated that state regulations require that a structure can be no closer than 3,000 feet to an exit ramp with 1,000 feet for spacing between each structure. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Berman stated that the paragraph in the staff report allowing four billboard spaces within every 1,000 lineal feet area in the Kent valley's industrial area does not account for nonconforming billboards. He stated that Kent's current code require that one structure have one face with four spaced within every 1,000 feet. Mr. Berman suggested that their company be allowed to back up that structure with another billboard on the back of an existing structure, allowing them to put four billboards per 1,000 feet but only have two structures. Mr. Berman addressed Planning staff's concerns regarding rotating shutter type billboards. He stated that the State Department of Transportation(DOT) has produced guidelines stipulating shutters shall turn no more than eight revolutions per minute which match the city of Kent's on-premise sign code pertaining to signs with shutter mechanisms. Mr. Berman defined a revolution as going from sign one all the way back to sign one. He stated that their companies signs take 25 to 30 seconds to complete one revolution which is approximately one-third less time then what the DOT and the city of Kent's on-premise sign code indicates. Mr. Berman spoke at length on how industry looks at billboard size. He stated that there are two standardized billboard sizes: a 300 square foot poster panel billboard and a 672 square foot bulletin billboard. Mr. Berman stated that the square footage signifies the actual space one advertisement fits on. He stated that though signs rotate, the copy space does not increase beyond the 300 square foot structure except where allowed by the code for lettering. Mr. Berman stated that his company would like to be given the opportunity to discuss all facets of the sign industry with the Land Use and Planning Board. He suggested creating an open forum to evaluate their goals for establishing quality sign locations vs. amassing large numbers of sign locations throughout the City of Kent in order to correspond with the city of Kent's goals. Board member Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. Berman if his company intended to place billboards along the light rail route into Seattle and Tacoma from Kent. Mr. Berman indicated that his company is only allowed to erect signs in the city of Kent's industrial zones that are relatively restrictive in comparison to other municipalities where their signs are allowed in commercial or light commercial zones. He stated that he would research Ms. Zimmerman's request. Diana Nelson addressed Steve Dowell's concerns about rotating on premise signs versus off-premise signs. Ms. Nelson stated that a section in the zoning code addresses general requirements for on- premise signs as follows: • prohibits blinking, flashing signs and signs rotating more than eight revolutions per minute within 75 feet of a public right-of-way. • a sign can rotate more than eight revolutions per minute beyond 75 feet of a public right-of-way. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Nelson stated that more allowances are made for on- premise signs than off-premise signs. She stated that on-premise signs tend to be smaller as their size is based on allowable street frontage for the business. Mr. Berman stated to Sharon Woodford that he has communicated with the cities of Des Moines, Sea-Tac, Renton and Federal Way prior to those cities implementation of their amortization ordinances disallowing billboard signs. Mr. Berman spoke at length on no net gain for signboards. Sharon Woodford stated that planning staff s proposal is quite liberal compared to surrounding city policies. Ms. Woodford asked Mr. Berman what he objected to in Kent's proposal and Mr. Berman was unable to testify to what type of off-premise signs would work within Kent at this time. David Malik MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Planning Director James Harris stated that the City Council has new operating procedures. He stated that recommendations made by the Land Use and Planning Board are forwarded to the Public Works and Planning Committee first. Mr. Harris stated that after the Committee reviews the Board's decision, they would make their recommendation to the Council as a Whole. Mr. Hams stated that he is ending his 30-year career as the City of Kent's Planning Director in the year 2000. He stated that with only one other staff person, they literally wrote the zoning code adopted by the city of Kent in 1973. Mr. Hams stated that if he were part of the sign industry, he would react in the same manner as Mr. Berman's company has in their attempt to delay implementation of this proposal. Mr. Hams commended Planning staff for their thorough research and stated that the proposed off- premise sign amendment is fair to the industry. Mr. Harris stated that the city allows signs to be repaired or rebuilt by owners on existing sites. He stated that he is not opposed to off-premise signs and commends advertising of a public notice nature. Mr. Harris stated that Planning staff advocates no net gain and encouraged the Board to move on the recommendation before them. He stated that the city's current sign inventory will remain the same and any signs that are not legal will be removed. Mr. Harris stated that staff would work with industry to ensure that older existing signs will remain in place. He stated that staff does not want to encourage opportunities for off-premise signs on new corridors or arterials. Brad Bell asked Diana Nelson if she recognized that on-premise and off-premise sign could exist on the same site. Ms. Nelson concurred and stated that Planning staff classifies the Kent Common's sign as an on-premise sign as it relates to recreational activity even though it provides information related to time and temperature. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 8 Brad Bell voiced objection to the definition referencing Poppa's Pub sign. He stated that Poppa's Pub periodically places"Go Mariners"on their sign and by definition their sign becomes a billboard. Brad Bell stated that an on-premise sign; advertising a message, directing attention to a business, profession, product, activity or service that is unrelated to any use or activity conducted or offered on the premises, or at the location where the sign is located, excluding road directional signs becomes a billboard under this definition. Mr. Bell asked Diana Nelson to clarify if this definition was what she intended to convey. Nelson stated that the word"unrelated"existed from another sign code possibly from King County. Ms. Nelson voiced her concern over the word "unrelated' and stated that it could be changed to "advertised'because Go Mariners is not really an advertisement, it is a sentiment. Brad Bell stated that it is an advertisement for a public corporation profit making company. Diana Nelson stated that the City of Kent has generally allowed reader boards where the language changes. She stated that these signs have been regarded as on premise signs because they relate to the business even though a national product may be referred to. Mr. Hams concurred that the sign under discussion is an on-premise sign. Mr. Bell stated that he was moved by Mr. Harris's presentation. He stated that this proposal offers a compromise to protect the advertising industry and the interests of the city of Kent. He stated that he finds the proposal to be less restrictive than some surrounding municipalities and supports the proposal. Steve Dowell suggested changing the terminology regarding removal of signs at the time of property development in Paragraph 6 to read: "A copy of the current lease shall be provided to the Planning Department as part of the development permit application materials." Laurie Evezich asked Mr. Hams to clarify if a"development permit application"is terminology used in the zoning code. She stated that if the intent of the definition is specific to off-premise sign applications, it could possibly be changed to read: "shall be provided to the Planning Department as a part of the off-premise sign permit application process". Mr. Harris stated that he believes off-premise signs located on vacant land being developed will be removed upon expiration of the twenty-year leases in affect at the time the signs were placed on the land. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 9 Board member Terry Zimmerman voiced her concern in proceeding with this item too quickly. She suggested that staff should set down with industry experts in order to get their view on what would be appropriate for off-premise signs in the city of Kent. She stated that it is reasonable to look at the City of Kent as a center of commerce in South King County and at the ethics of supporting businesses in this area as well as throughout our region with advertising. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she had anticipated more citizen input at the hearing and questioned if enough time had been given to this proposal in order to notify a broader citizen base. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she could form a better decision if she understood the State DOT regulations and stated that she did not favor moving this on to committee at this time. Brad Bell recommended that #ZCA-99-2 Billboard Regulations Amendment be approved as proposed by Planning staff with consideration given to clearly defining "on-premises" and "off- premises signs" and to include the underlined word rp oiect before the phrase "permit application" in Paragraph 6. Steve Dowell recommended that a moratorium be placed on this issue until it clears the proper council. James Hams stated that the Council will be issuing a moratorium on Tuesday, April 20 and that this off-premise sign amendment is on the Council's consent calendar and agenda. He stated that a public hearing would be held within sixty days of the moratorium. Mr. Harris stated that the next Public Works Planning Committee meeting would be held Monday, April 19, although the deadline for preparing the material for this proposal is past. This item will be presented to the Public Works Planning Committee Monday, May 3 to recommend approval to the City Council on Tuesday, May 4. Sharon Woodford stated that she appreciates all the work generated by planning staff and believes this is a liberal proposal compared to our sister cities. She stated that businesses could get involved at the City Council level and voiced her approval of this proposal. Diana Nelson suggested the following modification to the off-premise sign definition: "off- premises" sign means a sign whieh that contains a message or directs attention to a business, profession, product, activity or service that is unrelated not related to nag a use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding road signs, and is generally available by means of rental to persons other than the owner of the semen.,. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes April 12, 1999 Page 10 Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to accept staffs recommendation of#ZCA-99- 2 Billboard Regulations Amendment with the following modification to Section 15.02.430 in addition to the previous modifications in Section 15.06.404(R) identified by staff as indicated on Page two of the minutes, Items #2-4: "Off-premises" sign means a sign whieh that contains a message or directs attention to a business,profession,product, activity or service that is uhrwaterl no related to a" a use or activity conducted or offered on the premises or at the location where the sign is located, excluding road signs, and is generally available by means of rental to persons other than the owner of sign." Motion CARRIED six to one with Terry Zimmerman opposed. Laurie Evezich asked the Board if their recommendation is based on their belief that approval of the off-premise signs zoning code amendment will further public safety. promote public interest and preserve aesthetics in the city of Kent. The Board members concurred. ADJOURNMENT Brad Bell MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to adjourn the public hearing. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. jcre ctfullySubm, ed, sP. Harristary Kent City Council Meeting Date November 16 , 1999 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: GARRISON CREEK PARK RESERVOIR LID IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for Garrison Creek Park Reservoir Lid Improvement Project which includes resurfacing the tennis courts and replacing the basketball pole was held on November 2 , 1999 . Four bids were received. The Parks and Recreation Director recommends awarding the contract to Bell Contracting, LLC for base bid and alternates A & B totaling $40, 036 . 72 , plus WSST. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $40 , 036 . 72 , plus WSST SOURCE OF FUNDS : REET, CIP 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:f� Councilmember nLo moves, Councilmember_4 V seconds authorize an agreement with Bell Contracting, LLC for $40, 036 . 72 , plus Washington State Sales Tax to make reservoir lid improvements at Garrison Creek Park. v DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 8A MEMORANDUM TO: Garrison Creek Park Reservoir Lid Improvements Bidders FROM: Perry Brooks�� DATE: November 2, 19 SUBJECT: Results of Bids Thank you for submitting bids for the reservoir lid improvements at Garrison Creek Park. The results of the bids are: ~ Contractor Base Bid Alternate Total Bell Contracting, LLC $26,698.20 $13,038.52 $40,036.72 $300/per court Sahli Construction $32,480.00 $8,780.00 $42,460.00 $1,200/per court Extensive Enterprises $38,450.00 $12,800.00 $51,800.00 $550/per court Duchess Construction, Inc. $54,300.00 $20,000.00 $75,300.00 $1,000/per court The apparent low bidder is Bell Contracting, LLC for $40,036.72 plus WSST. Again, thank you for your bid. Correspondence/Bid Results Memo 11/02/99 Garrison Creek Park Reservoir Lid Improvements REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF �p A. COUNCIL PRESIDENTd/1N/ B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE� 1ZL So C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE _ D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PARKS COMMITTEE F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Vi/act'd-Y-\ OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES October 19, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: May Miller, Jim Miller, Dea Drake, Brent McFall, Dena Laurent, Jim Harris, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 3:30 PM. Approval of Minutes of October 5. 1999 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the October 5, 1999 Operations Committee minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Approval of the Combined Check-Detail Vouchers dated October 15, 1999 Finance Director May Miller presented the combined check-detail vouchers dated October 15, 1999. Sandy Amodt asked how many sewer projects were being undertaken currently. Ms. Miller said there were about 20 combined sewer and drainage projects in different stages of construction. Tim Clark moved to approve the vouchers and the motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3-0. Consolidated Food Management—Contract Extension Captain Jim Miller of the Kent Police Department said the City has contracted for food services with Consolidated Food Management since 1991 for the City of Kent Corrections Facility. He said he has been very pleased with the services provided by Consolidated Food Management and recommended extending the contract for the year 2000. Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council authorizing a contract extension to Consolidated Food Management, Inc. for the year 2000. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and carried 3-0. Community Access Studio Multi Media Manager Dea Drake said the City of Kent's Franchise Agreement requires AT&T (formerly TCI) to provide and operate a public access studio within eight miles of City Hall. Council granted a previous extension to the original deadline of July 1, 1999 to November 1, 1999 so City staff could continue efforts to broaden the scope to a "Community Access Studio" by finding an educational partner. Staff has looked at partnering with Highline Community College or Renton Vocational Technical College and is working with those two entities to see what kind of relationship can be worked out. By the time staff meets with all the partners and does all the things needed to make the studio happen, it will take a longer time than expected. Rather than keep coming back for extensions, the regional cities got together to decide how much time would be needed and it was determined that by January 1, 2001 the facility should be built and everything ready to go. All of the different cities will ask their councils for the same extension date to make the time frames the same. Tim Clark said the discussions and dialogue have changed the vision and direction somewhat and there are some exciting prospects if all the parts can be negotiated. He said it is exciting to build a resource that all of the greater South King County cities can benefit from. Staff is trying to broaden Operations Committee Minutes, 10/19/99 2 the dialogue to be more inclusive to other cities not currently involved in the process. Ultimately, Kent and all the cities will be benefited from the best quality facility that can be built. The drawback is that it takes rather extensive investments and infrastructure to set up such a facility, and there is also the long-term upgrade and tracking the market to consider. Negotiations aren't to the point of definitely having an educational partner yet, but the vision keeps getting better and better. The partners are now much more open to what's going on, and an effort has been made to have all of the sister cities involved in shaping the vision of where the process is going. The extension is a fairly long one, but the Committee feels that is the best way to set up what is really wanted. Dea Drake said staff wants to write an agreement with AT&T rather than just change the franchise agreement, and will ask the Law Department to help in drafting that agreement, Tim Clark moved to recommend to the Council authorization for the Mavor to enter into an agreement that would allow an extension of time on AT&T's public access facility obligations under section 5 of City Ordinance 31082 to January 1, 2001, subject to additional terms and conditions established by the City Attorney to guarantee AT&T's performance in line with the City's expectations. The motion was seconded by Sandy Amodt and carried 3 0. August Financial Report May Miller presented the August financial report, starting with the graphs on page 3 which show the General Revenue Fund. The cumulative graph shows 2% or S64,000 over budget. Ms. Miller said that amount of money would buy one position, and the importance of the number is that revenue this year is about $1.9 million less than at this time last year. Staff budgets very conservatively and always expects to over collect. Positions are budgeted with the expectation that not all would be filled all 12 months of the year. The desire is to start the year with S5-6 million. Expenditures shown on page 4 are about 3.3% under budget. That's a little bit higher than normal. The hiring freeze has just begun and the September report will show better how the expenditure trend is doing. The Sales Tax graph is shown on Page 6.. For the last 2-3 years Sales Tax has been significantly over budget (up to S2 million), but has really fallen this ,year. Contracting is 10% over budget, but Wholesaling is 24% or S 1.2 million under budget, comparing actual dollars received last year to actual dollars received this year. The service area is over budget, but Manufacturing is 43% under budget, or S600,000. If the two negative numbers are added up, it shows the whole decrease in Sales Tax is in Wholesale and Manufacturing. Wholesale and Manufacturing businesses can take their credit at any time during the year and if a large number did so at one time, it would result in a large decrease. Also there may have been some business slowdown because of the Asian crisis and those events could have had some impact on Sales Tax. However, the decrease was above and beyond the SS00,000 that was figured as the annual loss. Ms. Miller said she had called the state and gotten the figures and it was about S300,000 less than what had been budgeted. The October figures will show an even worse decrease. The General Fund totals were only about $72,000 less. Retail Sales Tax is up 4.3%, which is good as Kent is not a retail city like SeaTac or Tukwila. The Utility Tax is pretty much right on budget. Building Permits, shown on page 9, are showing a little under budget. That's because the months of January, February, and April were over budget when the proposal for additional staff went forward and the numbers for those months were used to indicate revenue available for that proposal. In July and August, Building Permits came in a little under budget. Page 10 shows the Year to Date Value of the permits which is still 26% over budget with a total value of S 144 million through August, a significant amount. Recreation Fees are up and just about offset the loss in the Building Permits. Fines and Forfeitures are definitely exceeding the Operations Committee Minutes, 10/19/99 3 budget. Overall revenue should be a little over budget primarily due to interest income, Fines and Forfeitures, and Utility Tax. The City was $2 million over budget this time last year but is only $400,000 over this year. On the expenditure side, $900,000 should result from the hiring freeze which is a significant number to help offset the shortfall in revenue and begin next year in a better position. The Year 2000 Revenue column shows the preliminary budget. It is not finished but the numbers indicate an implicit price deflator this year of 1.45 for increasing property tax. That final figure rate is received off the computer. The other revenues are pretty much hold the line revenues, but a small increasing property tax and no increase in sales tax does not pay for the 3.2% cola that the union contract is set at. The expenditure side for 2000 shows a deficit of$3.8 million. By November 2nd all the numbers will be in and there will be a presentation of the balanced budget at the Council Workshop. The preliminary budget will show the changes needed for a balanced budget. Other things besides just the hiring freeze have to be considered such as deferring some capital for equipment replacement. The original requests from the departments citywide were for another $5 million not available. Requests for 48 1/2 positions made up most of that $5 million. After the Council Workshop presentation, there will be another opportunity to discuss the budget at the Operations Committee meeting on Nov. 16`h where modifications can be recommended. The last public hearing is at the second Council meeting in November with final passage and adoption at the December 14, 1999 Council meeting. Taxes will also need to be adopted at the Dec. 14` meeting. Vacant positions in the General Fund total 48, and there are 68 citywide. Some of these are being filled because they are critical and others are coming vacant. The CIP fund is having the same problem with sales tax, but because there was so much land sold this year, real estate excise tax is more than making up for it. Overall, things are looking okay in the Capital Fund. The Golf Course figures shown on Page 18 indicate August was 16.2% under budget. Those numbers are based on the last two to three-year trend so the weather differences could be averaged. Overall, the golf course was running 17.5% under budget through August and that percentage equaled $478,000. The September numbers were just slightly better. Director of Operations Brent McFall reassured the Committee that staff is approaching the Golf Course situation very proactively and is making every effort to conform expenditures to revenues as they come in. The sales tax impacts are a concern. Other manufacturing cities in the region are not suffering a similar decline and staff doesn't know what the answer is to that. The business activity in the Kent Valley appears to be as strong as ever. There are questions that need answers, but in the meantime staff is working very proactively to maintain a balanced budget and live within the means available. The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 18, 1999 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Tom Brotherton, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Tom Brubaker, John Bond, John Rostad, Joe Mitchell, Gary Gill, Jim Storment, Fred Satterstrom, Travis Young, Frank Spanjer, Justin Osemene, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: John Santana, Tereasa McGowan, Ted Nixon The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 4:08 PM. Mr. Clark switched the order of presentation of Items 2 and 3. Approval of Minutes of October 4, 1999 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of October 4, 1999. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and carried 2-0. Water Rates Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said the City of Kent has its own water system but does not serve the entire City limits. Highline Water District, which is a separate entity, services the City west of Military Road to 124`h. Two districts service the City of Kent proper. One is Water District #111 whose general outlying district services everything east of 124`h, north to 180`h, south to 277`h. SooS Creek Sewer and Water District is another separate, independent agency that services the area east of the freeway. These are separate, independent agencies and are responsible for their own operations, for developing new sources of water and providing that water to the people, doing their own operation maintenance on their systems. Kent has very little control other than a franchise right to use public rights of ways. Kent used to be the sole source water provider for Water District #111. When rates were increased in 1984 which was the last time Kent increased rates (rates were reduced in 1992), Water District 4111 went independent and developed their own well systems and supplemental supplies. They also executed an agreement with Auburn for additional supplies. When Auburn increased its rates, Water District #111, because they get a sizeable portion of their water from Auburn, had to pass that cost on to their customers. Kent has no part or say in that matter. Water District #111 is inside the City of Kent and is given a franchise to use the right of way for its facilities. They do not bill through the City since they are a totally independent agency, with commissioners that get elected. Tim Clark asked if it was true that water resources are fairly stretched in the greater King County area right now, and a major rebuild is coming to the Seattle water supply system. Mr. Wickstrom replied that Seattle's rate is now higher than Kent's, and when the rates were implemented in 1984, Kent was almost the highest in the state. Kent is now down below mid range in terms of state rate comparisons. Kent will have rate increases in the future as it is running short on supply. The next water source is the Tacoma project of which Kent's share is S28 million, and will involve a rate increase when it is implemented. That is the only major new water source that's permitted to come online in the near term and it has been 20 years in the works. Tim Clark commented that the water systems were set up about a hundred years ago for the greater urban area and now with the build-out of the Growth Management Act, there is an inability to deliver water for all the new construction without costly investment to create additional water sources. Mr. Wickstrom said that all the cheap and easy sources are gone and with the GMA in effect, it will be Public Works/Planning Committee, 10/18/99 2 much more difficult to develop new sources, and water is a rare commodity nowadays. Kent is one of the lucky ones in that it has a project that's been permitted. Mr. Clark added that if Kent fails to develop new water sources, it potentially faces a building moratorium. SCATBd Advisory Interlocal Agreement— Amendment Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained that the South King County Area Transportation Board Advisory Interlocal Agreement Amendment was brought forward by Mr. Clark, in a recommendation from the SCATBd Committee that the various member cities enter into an interlocal agreement amending certain provisions of an existing SCATBd agreement to address responsibility and authority of voting members as opposed to non-voting members. SCATBd requires an authorizing signature and the motion would be for authorization to allow Councilmember Clark, as the City representative, to endorse the amendment to the interlocal agreement. Mr. Clark added that the board is a forum established for the South County Sub-area of King County for input into the following decisions: the King County Metro 6 Year Transportation Development Plan, implementation of transit service priorities, recommendations to TEA-21 money which are shared federal highway funds, and modifications to implementation of the Sound Move Plan, the regional transit heavy rail for which groundbreaking will take place in Kent this month. Other changes involved adding the new cities of Maple Valley and Covington as members. The role of voting and non-voting members issue deals with the appropriate roles of the various agencies that participate in the South Area Transportation Board. One of the problems is that some official and voting members are members of the King County Council, which is appropriate because it's a shared planning agency, but the County Executive is not represented. The question was could his designee play an active role in the meetings and formulation of the plan with King County staff by carrying messages back and forth to the Executive. Mr. Clark said he felt that was very appropriate, and also that the SCATBd Committee was an important means of addressing the various transportation problems that King County incurs, particularly in the South County area. Tom Brotherton moved to authorize the Mayor or his delegate the authority to sign for the city a revised Interlocal Agreement pertaining to the South County Transportation Board. Tom Brubaker said the motion would be clarified when it went to council. Tim Clark seconded the motion and it carried 2-0. Traffic Congestion Don Wickstrom presented an overall map collage of City traffic counts. He said the material is raw data representing the daily count, but would be different depending on what day traffic is counted. SR516/Kent Kangley, as it comes down and turns into Canyon Drive, shows 44,000 vehicles per day. A freeway can move close to 2,000 vehicles per day per lane. Kent Kangley is a 4-lane facility and is doing a thousand. That's good for an arterial street where there are signals, driveways, and cross movement. In Level of Service classifications from A to F, where F is at capacity or beyond, Kent Kangley would be classified an F. At the intersection of Kent Kangley and SR515/1041hBenson Highway, Kent Kangley has 36,000 vehicles per day and Benson has 28,000. Mr. Wickstrom said that with those kinds of volumes the signal can't be tweaked to make the mountains of traffic flow through there. With 28,000 coming off of Benson, that signal has to have priority. Time has to be given based on the availability. Otherwise, traffic will back up in one direction versus the other direction. Public Works/Planning Committee, 10/18/99 3 Rico Yingling asked about day, morning, and evening cycles. Don Wickstrom said there are peak hour programs. At 240`h and Benson Highway, the count is between 24,000, 27,000, and 28,000. Those volumes are beyond capacity. Meeker Street between the Green River Bridge and Russell Road is a 2-lane facility that pushes 25,000 cars through. That's even more than SR 516, and the freeway only has 23,000. At Meeker Street and the West Valley Highway the numbers are 27,000, 17,000, and 21,000. The issue is a combined `intersection and road capacity' problem. There is more volume than the current system can handle. The 277`h Corridor which would tie in with 116`h should relieve some of the congestion. Rico Yingling said that the citizens on the East Hill have the feeling that the 277`h St. Corridor will bring more traffic onto Kent Kangley as opposed to relieving congestion of the central area. Don Wickstrom said the traffic is not all going one way. The whole area is essentially feeding down through the valley, going north and south and a lot of it going to Seattle. The records show 60% go north in the moming to work and south in the evening to go home. As long as there is development going on, the new corridor will provide some relief. On the Soos Creek Plateau, there is Petrovisky, 212`h, 240`h, and SR516. SR516 and 212`h are the only ones that go all the way across the valley and tie to 1-5. SE 240`h only goes to West Valley Highway. There are quite a few good north/south corridors such as West Valley Highway and East Valley Highway, but they are at high volumes. East Valley Highway north of 212`h is at 36,000 vehicles per day. 196`h Street Corridor will come across, tie into Orillia Road and then I-5, and will relieve 212`h. In front of Boeing 34-35,000 vehicles per day travel through the intersection with 36,000 on West Valley Highway, and 27-34,000 on 212`h. The 224`h corridor would tie to 228`h, go up to Military Road, and then tie in with an interchange to be the reliever of that section. There is too much volume with the limit of arterials in the City. The traffic program concentrates on making new capital improvements, expending almost S30 million on the 277`h corridor and $65 million on the 196`h corridor. The program is also doing commuter trip reduction. All businesses with over 100 employees have to develop a Commute Trip Reduction Program and have goals to achieve. Transportation Demand Management or TDM is where an employee on staff will work with the businesses, trying to reduce their demand. Rico Yingling asked if school traffic creates a lot more capacity problem. Mr. Wickstrom said that traffic flows much freer through the summer months when school is out than it does during the winter work day periods. Traffic is also much lighter on Fridays or Mondays with so many employees taking flex time. Tom Brotherton questioned whether there might be some timing adjustments that could be made with the school district that would help alleviate the problem in some areas. Tim Clark observed that Boeing and the schools both let out about 3 o'clock which makes the whole traffic on the valley floor impassable. Mr. Wickstrom clarified that Boeing lets employees out in 20 minute shifts, which creates a fairly constant volume on roads such as West Valley Highway because it stretches the peak hour out over a much longer period of time and helps the system absorb the flows better than if the cars were all coming at one time. Tom Brotherton suggested that the school district could have slightly staggered release times for different classes, even 5 minutes apart, to spread out the impact. Mr. Wickstrom said people can contact Joe Mitchell, Neighborhood Traffic Control Coordinator, if there are problems with traffic feeding to neighborhoods or non neighborhood traffic in the neighborhoods. Mr. Mitchell can institute a process to address those problems. Public Works/Planning Committee, 10/18/99 4 Tom Brotherton commented that the roads and intersections are at capacity and there isn't enough money to build all the roads that'll handle the growth, and the communities continue to grow and and the service levels continue to go down. He asked if there may be opportunities for redirecting the traffic to some of the lesser used roads that go in the same general direction to balance out the flow. Mr. Wickstrom replied that all the routes are major with heavy volumes. Gary Gill said that people tend to seek out new routes and the path of least resistance. He said the traffic operations people are working with some of the adjacent jurisdictions. One program is called the Green River Signal Coordination Committee and involves a cooperative arrangement between Kent, Tukwila, Renton, King County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. They are trying to intertie the signal systems together for better coordination to progress traffic through the intersections in a better fashion. The Citv is also in the process of installing a signal interconnect along the Kent Kangley corridor to try to coordinate and allow traffic to flow better through that system. Mr. Gill explained that the traffic signals are traffic actuated which means they are controlled by the cars that come onto the signal controller through loops that are cut into the pavement. Every time a car goes over the loops it triggers the signal to sense that there's a car there. Kent Kangley intersections, for example, will have minimum green times and maximum green times that are given to each phase of the signals. If one phase doesn't use all of its maximum green time, it will let the other way go early. Because a car may leave early at that signal, it will get to the next signal sooner than normal which wouldn't allow for the progression that is timed into that next signal, and the car would have to stop again. If the car had been held to the maximum green time at the previous signal, the traffic might have progressed better. There are pros and cons of the various ways of putting the signal systems together. With the ` old fixed time signals, if people drove at 35 miles an hour they would go through every signal. Then people complained because they sat at signals where there was no side street traffic and they'd wonder why they were having to wait when nobody was there. The City is working on various types of programs to try to optimize the way the system works, but it's complicated and gets very complex when there are demands in all directions. Rico Yingling said that it seems like the maximum green times for the signals on Central are very short for the direction that most of the traffic is going at peak hour. It takes 10 or 15 seconds for cars to get moving up to speed and then the light turns yellow. The feeling is that the maximum green time is about 15 seconds. Gary Gill responded that most of the system was re-timed about 8 to 9 years ago and the cycle links shortened. The City used to use 150 second cycle lengths which meant for all four directions it took about 2% minutes. A study was done that found more cars could be pushed through the system if the cycle lengths were shortened to 120 seconds because when there are the really long phases that try to flush all the cars out in one direction, cars tend to get such large gaps between them that the amount through is not optimal. Travel time from fixed points from the west side of the city to the east side of the city along some of the major corridors was reduced by 6 to 8 minutes when the cycle lengths were shortened. One thing that confuses the public is there's such a difference in philosophy from one jurisdiction to another. King County roads and those controlled by the State Department of Transportation system tend to have really long cycle lengths. The City systems have the capability of changing the programs to serve changes in demand that occur for different times of the day and for weekends. In the morning there are some very directional flows coming into the City, but in the evening it's not as directional and there is more uniform distribution of traffic flows. Mr. Gill said comments and observations on the system are encouraged and it helps the traffic technicians to get out there and see if the system can be improved in some way. Public Works/Planning Conunittee. 10/18/99 5 Tom Brotherton observed that most major streets do not use medians or anything to limit access, and traffic flows improve and accidents are decreased if the number of access opportunities are limited, especially on the high speed streets. Gary Gill pointed out some of the high accident locations that have occurred over a three year period as illustrated on the map. Kent Kangley Road near the Benson Highway had 49 accidents in the last three years. Details show those accident to be rear end accidents and side swipes caused by the in and out movements into driveways and businesses. The traffic section is looking at those statistics and may actually be forced at some point into putting "c" curbs in to restrict turning movements at high accident locations. Don Wickstrom said the state has funded the Access Control Program for the Benson Highway and parts of the Kent Kan.-ley. Gary Gill said that people plan their trips more now because things are so congested and it's so difficult to make turning movements during certain times of the day. A driver may turn into the gas station in the morning when it's on the right hand side of the road. Rico Yingling asked if an aggregate analysis of all the accidents is done or if it's done location by location. Gary Gill said it's done primarily by location where the nature of the accidents is looked at to determine whether it's turning restrictions,just congestion, or some other problem. If it's a large area and there are accident statistics all along a corridor, then it would be more an aggregate program. Mr. Yingling suggested that a systemic policy change could be made that might effect accidents overall and if the aggregate was not looked at, it might not be evident that the policy change, such as changing the cycle time of the lights, could have affected the overall system in a way that increased or decreased accidents. Mr. Gill said that as part of the long range planning and the updating of the City's Comp Plan, the transportation model will be redone. Mr. Wickstrom added that with the model, staff will be able to project future growth and the impact on the systems with and without improvements to see where the money should be spent. Mr. Gill said the model will be recalibrated some time next spring and there will be new numbers to look at as far as forecast data for 2010 and 2020. That's in conjunction with some of the other issues such as the road standards and some of the other transportation plan element updates for the Comp Plan. Rico Yingling mentioned the need for a new traffic signal at the intersection in front of Kent Meridian High School. Don Wickstrom said there was a left tum signal grant available and it could be added to the Public Renewable Signal System. Tim Clark asked what the cost would be to add a signal like that. Mr. Wickstrom said it was S73,000 for a remodel and S225,000 for the full signal. Single Family Development in Multi Family Zones Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, addressed the issue of the density of single family development in multi family zones. Right now in the City of Kent the policy toward single family development in multi family zone is that the highest density a single family development can have which is SR-8 zoning district is permitted in any of the multi family zoning districts. A multi family zoning district like MR-G which is Multiple Family Residential Garden Density allows 16 units to the acre for apartments or condominiums. Single family development, since its controlled by the SR-8 zoning standards, could be built 8.71 units to the acre. The question is why does a multi family zoning district permit less density in terms of single family zoning than it does for multi family. The SR-8 zoning district, in calculating the maximum density, allows a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet per unit. However, the total density cannot exceed 8.71 units per acre which basically means that the average lot size will not be 4,000 square feet but 5,000 square feet. That's because the SR-8 zone owes its origins to the old R-1 5,000 square foot zone which had a 5,000 square foot Public Works/Planning Committee, 10/18/99 6 minimum lot size. Single family homes do have a lower density than multiple family. The City has — had a history of allowing the highest density single family zoning in its multiple family zones. About 9 years ago the SR-8 zone was created and put into the multi family zoning districts as the most dense single family zoning district. Before that it used to be about units to the acre. Staff is not necessarily saying that SR-8 zoning is the way to go. This has been a policy for a long time and the City of Kent doesn't have a lot of multi family zoning that is yet to be developed. Land economics being what they are doesn't create a lot of demand for single family in multi family zoning districts. To change the current policy would take a zoning amendment and code change. Tom Brotherton clarified that if someone owns a piece of property zoned MR-G they would be allowed to build up to 16 units per acre multi family on that property. If they desire to build single family residences, they would be limited to 8.71 units per acre. If the minimum lot size interpretation of 4,000 square feet was used, they could build 10 units per acre. Mr. Brotherton said that penalizes the owner for wanting to build single family units as he can't build as many as would fit on that property otherwise. This doesn't affect a lot of pieces of property in the City, but it seems when the Council decides to zone an area for multi family, the density allowed should be the density set in that area no matter what is built, within certain limits and following the rules. Mr. Brotherton said he thought Council should be encouraging people to build the single family residences where the smaller lot sizes and more units would make them more affordable. He said there seems to be a conflict in policy. He asked if there were any professional planning or technical reasons why letting people build up to the lot size limit on such property would be a bad idea for the City. Mr. Satterstrom said the Planning Department would agree with an increase in density for — single family development in multi family zoning districts. Technical reasons why single family zoning was SR-8 could have been because it was the highest density single family zone and if somebody wanted to plat, all the development standards were known and that didn't create an additional set of development standards. If the council's inclination is to look into the issue of ways which single family development can be aided by some reasonable effort to increase the density of multi family zoning districts, staff would want to go along and look into that also. There's not a lot of land that can be developed that way, but if there's just one person with a decent size piece of property that allows a plat to be developed in a multi family zoned piece of property, that's enough. The City's Comprehensive Plan is supposed to provide for 20 years of growth and that's what the Plan was based on when it was passed in 1995. The multi family zoned areas are looked at and it's projected how many future housing units can be built on the multi family zoned land as well as the single family zoned land. A mathematical decision is made as to whether or not there is enough capacity for 20 years of growth. If there were a lot of multi family zoned land that was vacant, and if it were all to develop in single family plats, the capacity analysis would probably be off. However, there is not enough vacant multi family zoned land that if a few plats were developed as single family that it would effect capacity. Mr. Yingling asked about the rezoning of additional lands to multiple family including the potential annexation areas. Mr. Satterstrom said he thought the Council would be very leery of rezoning additional lands to multiple family and that Kent's policy for annexed areas has been to take a good look at areas that are zoned multiple family. Tom Brotherton said it sounded like the policy in this area was slightly inconsistent with other policies and recommended asking the Land Use and Planning Board to take a look at the issue and make a recommendation. Mr. Satterstrom said he'd be happy to do that and would take the recommendation to the Board under the general umbrella of what can be done in terms of opening up Public Works/Planning Committee, 10/18/99 7 some opportunities for additional single family development at higher densities in the multi family zoning districts. Citizen Comment by Tereasa McGowan Tereasa McGowan, 25818 26`h Pl. S, Kent, said she was the Community and Resident Initiatives Coordinator for Inter-Community Housing, a low income housing community in Kent. Ms. McGowan passed out a petition from her community safety board and a map of the subject area. The road closure at 291h and 2561h will impact a number of children on 27`h Street from the Appian Way and Pacific Pointe apartments. There are 250 kids that are picked up along that street at different spots along the way. After the road closes on Friday, the children will be picked up at the road closure site on 29`h and 256`h as the Transportation Department of the Federal Way Schools has determined. The specific bus stops have yet to be determined as the Federal Way School District doesn't feel like it's had enough time to figure those things out yet, but they agree it's not safe to have the busses back up and turn around onto 271h Street. Ms. McGowan stated that since 29`h had been determined to be such a busy street to necessitate the road closure, having an additional 250 children on that street doesn't seem like a safe option either. At one given time, 8:45 in the moming, about 100 Sunnycrest Elementary kids will be picked up at that road closure site of 256`h and 29`h. Those kids will be congregating there and it will take two school busses for the pick up. 100 kids congregating and running around and doing what kids do when they're in elementary school doesn't seem like a safe situation. 271h Street also has no street lights and the children will be walking in the dark. Also there is no crosswalk or anything of that nature on 27`h Street. Ms. McGowan said she knew the road was being closed because of safety reasons for children, but feels the 250 kids weren't recognized when the decision to close the street was made, and that the City Council didn't realize there would be that many children affected. Rico Yingling asked Ms. McGowan if she had a recommendation. Ms. McGowan said she would like to see the street not closed until a study could be done of exactly what the impacts would be, and did not see any other option for the school kids to be picked up at another point. She said 259`h and 2601h are both really busy streets and the Transportation Department doesn't feel that is a safe place for the busses to stop. Since it wasn't a situation that the City Council was aware of when the decision was made to close the road, they should take a second look at it and step back to see where the real impacts are going to be. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Potential Litigation B) Real Property Sale