Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 12/12/2000 i s City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda KENT k a pp r v{f�G j¢ }q ${ y i1 ;� Q�#� C bs� E S,..A p� S � 3�Y k f� i.1 Asa f p i y e Y,>�£ h f 1 1 �!y. ,S s Y.u"5 i.uP i i An Y '; -..;�.F7is? px}� d ,.-.ppe ly _ N w. { b I k M 1 December 12. 2 1� SUMMARY AGENDA { 00 KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 12 , 2000 K EN T _ WAS„I„ TON Council Chambers 7 : 00 p.m. MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling ******************************************************************* 1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF ,3• B. FROM THE PUBLIC (• p�HS ((A �f 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS S�A. Employee of the Month - nvi- aNenda�.�- B. National Night Out Award C. Introduction of Appointees 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 71st Avenue South Street Vacation 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval B. Bills - Approval C. LID 354 , Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvement - Resolution of Intent frj ? 7 D. 155th Avenue S . E . Street Vacation - Resolution Setting Hearing Date E . Green/Duwamish and Lake Washington/Cedar River Interlocal Agreements - Authorize 1� F . South 180th Street Underpass Interlocal Agreement - ��JJ Authorize G. Telecommunications Services Agreement - Authorize H 2O01 Kent Reporter Contract - Authorize I . Intergovernmental Affairs Consulting Contract a Authorize J. Accounts Receivable Write Off - Authorize K. Change Account Increase Ordinance - Adopt L. Kent Human Services Commission Reappointments - Confirm M. Public Access Studio - Authorize N. Finance Dept . Accounting Technician PT Status Change - Authorize 0. 2000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance - Adopt P . Pacific Gateway BSI Park Final Plat Q. City of Auburn Home Repair Services Interlocal Agreement (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED R. Rotary Club Basketball Court Project - Accept as Complete S . Garrison Creek Park Court Re-surfacing Project - Accept as Complete T. Chestnut Ridge Demolition of Structures - Accept as Complete U. Clark Lake Park House - Surplus and Demolish V. Drinking Driver Task Force Reappointments - Confirm W. Land Use and Planning Board Reappointments - Confirm X. Public Defense Services Agreement - Authorize Y. Human Services Commission Appointment - Confirm Z . Drinking Driver Task Force Appointment - Confirm AA. Regional Justice Center Citizens Advisory Committee Reappointment - Confirm 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Urban Separator Framework Policy Amendment B . 2001 Budget Adoption Ordinance C . Metro Sewer Rate Increase - Ordinance c' 8 . BIDS A. Permit Center and Planning Department Tenant Improvements 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Property Acquisition (3. �e nd i L&iIQafj4i` (` a 4en}ia Li{-i.I a t)D� 13 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE : A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library. An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page . Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk ' s Office in advance at (253) 856-5725 . For TDD relay - service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833 -6388 . CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Citizens wishing to address the Council will , at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B) FROM THE PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A) EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH B) NATIONAL NIGHT OUT AWARD C) INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTEES Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Public Hearings 1 . SUBJECT: 71ST AVENUE SOUTH STREET VACATION - STV-2000-1 (KIVA #2003747) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Resolution No. 1578 established December 12 , 2000, as the public hearing date for the application by Loren Combs, to vacate portions of S . 181st Street and 71st Avenue South, existing public streets, lying generally southeast of the intersection of SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and S . 180th Street . A staff report recommending approval with conditions is included in the Council ' s packet . 3 . EXHIBITS : Staff report and map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY• (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing . n B. Councilmember 1=='' w moves, Councilmember �d'.y' seconds to approve/ the Planning Manager ' s recom- mendation of approval with conditions of the application to vacate portions of S . 181st and 71st Avenue South, as referenced in Resolution No. 1578 , and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of approval . DISCUSSION: ACTION: G Council Agenda Item No. 5A . --. - MEMORANDUM 1,11IN10- KEN T December 5,2000 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER PLANNING SERVICES RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP APPLICATION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF S. 181ST Manager STREET AND 71sr AVENUE SOUTH -#STV-2000-1 Mailing Address: (KIVA#2003747) 220 Fourth Ave.S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 HEARING DATE: December 12, 2000 Location Address: 400 West Gowe RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS Kent,WA 98032 Phone:253-856-5454 I. Name of Applicant Fax:253-856-6454 Larry A. Culver, Manager Stonebrook Kent, LLC P. O. Box 4646 Bellevue, WA 98009-3646 II. Reason for Requesting Street Vacation As stated in the application, the vacation is being sought in order for a lot line adjustment to be completed which will facilitate the eventual development of a restaurant. The restaurant would be constructed on South 180`h St. between West Valley Highway and 72"d Avenue. III. Backeround The portion of roadway proposed to be vacated presently serves as a de facto right turn lane for northbound traffic on West Valley Highway at 1801h Street. With proposed right-of-way improvements on S. 180`h Street, there is no need for this segment of road. Without the street vacation, the small parcel at the corner of S. 180`h Street and West Valley Highway remains an island, surrounded by street right-of-way. IV. Staff Recommendation After reviewing comments from the following departments and agencies: ■ Public Works • Police ■ Parks ■ Fire ■ Puget Sound Energy ■ U.S. West Brian Ludford Page 2 December 5, 2000 And conducting our own review, the Planning Services Division recommends that the request to vacate portions of S. 181" Street and 7151 Avenue S. as described in Resolution#1577 and shown on the accompanying map, be Approved with the following conditions: 1. The City shall be compensated for the value of said right-of- way in accordance with state law. Further, that as part of said compensation, the City would accept additional right-of- way from what was the ARCO AM/PM mini-market site along its West Valley Highway and S. 1801h Street frontages for future widening of said roadways. The amount of said additional right-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, and the compensation therefore shall be the subtraction of its square footage from the total right- of-way square footage to be vacated on a 1 to 1 basis. 2. The City shall retain utility easements for its existing water and sewer facilities that presently exist within the right-of- way to be vacated. 3. The City shall retain the right to grant utility easement(s) to other private and/or public utilities that presently have facilities within said right-of-way. 4. Any monies received by the City for compensation of the vacated right-of-way shall go into the school pedestrian walkways fund (R36) for use by the Public Works Department per school pedestrian walkway improvement project. FS\cb\P:admin\srv20001.doc i EXHIBIT 3 RECEIVED 0 pph L3 A=2706'32' SIJ {OrETY q 14'40,w R=68.00' 26.92' MOYENr L=26.24' C2 L2 L4 L=78'53'10' �4J18'101 N44'12'11'E R=28.50% I 5V3'. 16.24' .1 F14T NORTH LINE HENRY A➢AA15 DLC N0. 43 Cl CITY � Ul'- .. !RY ADAMS DLC NO. 43 S. 180TH ST, SW22'20*E 1423.24' 297.52' Y N8$36'41 W 1 N88'36'411r 7 r S893605'E 52.81r " �30 25 7T1931 E I N N I Y I N aJ Lyj RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION / REC. NO. 9702190704 I I t / F9 1 w 0, �� N8816'311Y 111.24' 6 �q) S. 181ST ST, s 8 a -��� ,"' W 116.25' % % N88'1631Yf 201.30' L3 25. 5 55.36' v a N8816'31'W n a s L4 J�`I ErrONEBROOK SLATES BETE RICM OF WAY DEDICATION (RECORD Of SUR&Y 9404119004) a REC. NO. 9W1262426 v 4 Seale. For: STONEBROOK Job Number Horizontal Vertical INTERNATIONAL, LLC 7569 Q' tS 18215 7 D AV NUE SOUTH P.O. BOX 3848 GHgG �P �_ (425)251-6272 BELLEVUE WA 98009-3848 sheet (425)251-8782 FAX Title: a CML ENGINEERING, LAND ROAD VACATION r )'fit � ENVIROINME NG T SERVICES EXHIBIT 1 of 1 Desi ned Drown Ch cked r red_- ^^'� 71 ST AVE. SOUTH STREET VACATION STV 20004IKIVA #2003747 �N 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action:Councilmember Aw moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through AA be approved. DiscussionG" !I Action C'- GA. Approval of Minutes . Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 21, 2000 . 63. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through November 15 and paid on November 15, after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 21, 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/15/00 504349-504604 $1 , 623 , 411 . 80 11/15/00 504605-505011 1 , 850 , 464 . 04 $3 , 473 , 875 . 84 Approval of payment of the bills received through November 31 and paid on November 31 , after auditing by the Operations Committee on December 5 , 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/31/00 505012-505288 $1, 166, 296 . 18 11/31/00 505289-505697 3 , 421 , 326 . 93 $4 , 587, 623 . 11 (continued) /,T /0 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 1 through November 15 and paid on November 20, 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/20/00 Checks 247967-248282 $ 262 , 782 . 33 11/20/00 Advices 103009-103639 980 , 243 . 48 $1, 243 , 025 . 81 Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through November 30 and paid on December 5, 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 12/5/00 Checks 248283-248644 $ 319, 472 . 11 12/5/00 Advices 103640-104523 1 , 141 , 181 . 69 $1, 460, 653 . 80 Council Agenda Item No . 6 A-B Kent, Washington November 21, 2000 The regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White . Councilmembers present : Amodt, Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling . Others present : Chief Administrative Officer McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Parks Director Hodgson, Employee Services Manager Viseth and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 50 people were at the meeting. FLAG SALUTE The flag salute was led by Cub Scout Troop 455 . CHANGES TO THE AGENDA ORR MOVED to make a letter dated November 21, 2000 from Louise Lea regarding the urban separator moratorium a part of the record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Items 11A, 11B and 11C were added to Continued Communications at the request of audience members Mike Hansford, Ted Kogita and Robert O' Brien. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Chamber of Commerce Report on Freight Mobility System Improvement Project. Barbara Ivanov distributed copies of the Freight Mobility System Improvement Project Final Report and recognized the City' s leadership on this project . She outlined the purpose of the report, the critical issues facing the freight system, projected growth, the timeliness of delivery, and solutions . Upon Yingling ' s question regarding future economic growth, Ivanov said the two most important points are the infra- structure and deliverables . Mayor White noted that the 196th corridor to East Valley Highway will open in the spring which will help freight movement . Kent Sister City Presentation. Finance Director Miller presented Police Chief Crawford with an award from the Sister City Association in recognition and appreciation of his volunteer contribution to the association, especially the Young Artists Program. Miller and Mayor White commended Chief Crawford for his efforts . Crawford expressed his thanks and said that nothing is more important than our young people . 1 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through J be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of November 7, 2000 . HEALTH & SANITATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) Sunrise Haven Nursing Home Bill Of Sale. ACCEPT the Bill of Sale for Sunrise Haven Nursing Home submitted by Sunrise Haven for continuous operation and maintenance of 44 feet of watermain extension 30 feet of sanitary sewers, 164 feet of street improve-ments, 310 feet of storm sewers and release bonds after the expiration period, as recommended by the Public Works Director. The project is located at 24417 100th Avenue S .E. TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) S. 272nd Corridor Proiect. ACCEPT the S . 272nd/277th Corridor - AWN-Kent Kangley contract as complete and release retainage to M. A. Segale upon standard releases from the State and release of any liens, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . The original contract amount was $4 , 436 , 286 . 07 . The final contract amount is $5 , 801, 039 . PARKING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) No Parking Signs Amendment. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3530 amending KCC 9 . 38 . 020 providing for a no parking zone along the north side of S .E. 267th Street from the intersection of 102nd Avenue S .E. to the inter- section of 104th Avenue S .E. , as recommended by the Public Works Committee . ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) DeMarco Annexation, 10% Petition. A 10% annexation petition has been submitted to the City of Kent by residents of the proposed DeMarco annexation area. The ANNEXATION 2 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 proposed annexation area is located generally north of SE 240th Street between 116th Avenue and 132nd Avenue SE . This date has been set to consider acceptance of the 10% petition and whether to authorize the distri- bution of the 60% annexation petition. Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that the area is approximately 260 acres in size and has approximately 770 residents . He said it is mostly single family, with 42 units of condominiums . He added that approxi- mately $278, 000 would be generated, that there are no significant impacts, and that it is consistent with annexation policies . He then recommended that the 10% petition be accepted and circulation of a 60% petition be authorized. BROTHERTON MOVED to accept the 10% annexation petition for the proposed DeMarco annexation and authorize the circulation of the 60% annexation petition, subject to the City' s existing indebtedness . Amodt seconded and the motion carried. INDEX (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7C) Public Disclosure Index Ordinance. RCW Chapter 42 . 17 requires all cities and public agencies to maintain and make available a current index of public records . It also provides that if maintaining such an index would be unduly burdensome or would interfere with agency opera- tions , a city need not maintain such an index, but it must issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and the extent to which compliance would be unduly burdensome . The magnitude and diversity of twelve City departments with an even greater number of .divisions/subdivisions has resulted in the creation and use of many different computer systems, programs and information retaining systems and it would be extremely difficult, if not physically impossible, to compile a single index. The City Attorney recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance, noting that existing indexes would be made available for locating public documents . He added that INDEX 3 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 the city produces documents as requested, and that the number of requests has increased in the last year, creating an additional burden. YINGLING MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3531 exempting the City from the requirement of maintaining a current index of public records . Woods seconded. Clark noted that the flow of paperwork is overwhelming and urged the Council to adopt the proposed ordinance . Yingling pointed out that this would save money on indexing, and Orr noted that it would not take away the public ' s ability to access documents . The motion then carried. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7D) 2001 Legislative Update. The 2001 Legislative Agenda was reviewed by Council at the November 7th workshop. Revisions have been made based on Council input , and it is now ready for adoption. The positions stated in the agenda will guide the City' s lobbying efforts with the 2001 State Legislature . McFall recommended adoption and explained the item regarding a more fair system of taxing laundry-service providers . Upon her question, Mayor White offered to provide Amodt with information regarding additional funding received by the city in the past year. In response to Clark' s question, Doug Levy expressed disappointment regarding ESA funding for local governments . McFall explained for Orr that the 2/10 of a percent sales tax increase for transportation will help with Metro service and that the Shopper Shuttle is most likely safe . He added that there will probably be no new routes . Mayor White commended Levy for the work he does on behalf of the City. YINGLING MOVED that the 2001 Legislative Agenda be adopted as presented. Woods seconded and the motion carried. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) Correction To FY2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. AUTHORIZATION to accept the corrected award and to correct the City match amount for FY2000 LLEBG. The grant was previously approved by the Operations POLICE 4 Kent City Council Minutes November 21 , 2000 Committee on 10/03/00 and by City Council on 10/17/00 at a 10% reduced award amount due to a perceived non- compliance issue . The correction was a result of a review of compliance with the Public Safety Officer Health Benefits provision. Compliance with this provi- sion provides the Kent Police Department the original award of $71, 425 , with a City match of $7, 936 . The grant project total is $79, 361 . The increased award from LLEBG is $7, 143 and the increased impact of the City match is $793 . (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B) Consolidated Food Management Contract Extension. The Police Department requests authorization to extend the contract with Consolidated Food management, Inc . (CFM) for food services at the Kent Corrections Facility. The current contract expires on December 31, 2000 . Both parties request the extension, which would cover from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 . Chief Crawford noted that there are no wording or payment changes in the contract . EPPERLY MOVED that the Consolidated Food Management con- tract be extended from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 . Orr seconded and the motion carried. PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Naming of Morrill Meadows Park. AUTHORIZATION to name the new park at 106th and 248th Street Morrill Meadows Park. The property was purchased from the Morrill family in 1995 . The Morrill family homesteaded the pro- perty and M.M. Morrill was a community leader in the late 1800 ' s and early 1900 ' s . He owned one of the first banks in Kent and served as Mayor of Kent . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) King County Youth Sports Facilities Grant. ACCEPTANCE of the $50 , 000 King County Youth Sports Facilities Grant for development of the Service Club Ballfields Project at East Hill and AUTHORIZATION to amend the Service Club Ballfields project budget . 5 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) Purchase Of Fire Apparatus. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a contract to purchase four (4) fire engine apparatus, and authorizing King County Fire Protection District #37 to purchase one (1) of the apparatus from the City of Kent, based upon their pre-existing relationship with the City. Council has previously granted approval to replace the two (2) BME fire engine/aid apparatus which were re- turned. Fire District #37 has authorized the purchase of a replacement engine/aid apparatus . Sufficient funds are in the Apparatus Replacement Fund to purchase a third (3rd) engine/aid apparatus for the City. BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 5A) 2001 Operating and Capital Budget and Tax Levy. Mayor White noted that this is the second public hearing on the 2001 Operating and Capital Budget and the first hearing on the Property Tax Levy. The 2001 Preliminary Budget is in balance, with no new taxes or fees, and the City' s share of the property tax rate decreases for the fourth year in a row. McFall noted that the budget totals $118 , 794 , 004 , which is a reduction from the 2000 budget of approximately $1, 500 , 000 . He explained that King County Metro has passed a rate increase for treatment of waste water on to the city and it will be passed on to the customer. He pointed out that the budget maintains the Council ' s policy on fund balances , and that expenses do not exceed revenues . He recommended proceeding with budget adop- tion and then managing expenditures carefully until the impacts of I-722 are known. Finance Director Miller added that the 10% fund balance of approximately $6, 000 , 000 provides a cushion until then. She then displayed a graph showing the decrease in property tax and noted that in 1997 the annual amount paid to the City for services on a home valued at $200, 000 was $675 and that for 2001 the amount would be $606 . She added that the budget will be discussed at the Operations 6 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 BUDGET Committee meeting on December 5 and is scheduled for adoption at the Council meeting of December 12 . Mayor White mentioned that he is mindful of the recent approval by the voters of Initiative 722 , and that since the City has not been able to get clear direction as to the impacts on the 2001 budget or how to treat the pro- posed property tax, he would like Council to proceed with consideration of the budget as proposed. He added that he will not fill new positions which are called for in the budget without first having an understanding of how the budget is impacted, and that he will direct staff to manage their budgets with the possible impacts of I-722 in mind. He then opened the public hearing. Martin Plvs, 3004 S . 256th, disputed the figures provided on home values and said that taxes continue to increase on homes . He suggested using the $6, 000 , 000 fund balance to help homeowners reduce their taxes . He also suggested that information regarding money being provided relating to I-695 be provided at the next meeting . He concluded by saying that cities are not listening to voters , and will be held accountable for every penny. Robert O ' Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, suggested combining the office of Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer into one in order to save money. Ted Kogita provided a portion of an article from the Washington Institute Foundation and said last year the City made figures lie . Mayor White explained for Kogita that the rates which the City charges are going down, and that the City has no control over what the King County Assessors Office does to property valuation. Yingling offered to investigate the article and discuss it at the next Operations Committee . Upon Orr ' s request , Kogita agreed to provide Councilmembers with copies of the entire article . Kathryn Sheldon, 23215 113th Place SE, expressed thanks for the code enforce- ment service and encouraged the City to add another code enforcement officer or at least provide funding for the current officers . There were no further comments from the audience and YINGLING MOVED to close the public hearing on the 2001 Operating and Capital Budget and _ Tax Levy. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Brotherton reiterated thdt the County Assessor sets the 7 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 BUDGET value of a house, and that the City of Kent controls only a very small portion of the rate that is charged based on that assessment . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31, after auditing by the Operations Committee on November 7 , 2000 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/00 503549-503832 $1, 024, 260 . 75 10/31/00 503833-504348 2 , 645 , 583 .45 $3 , 669, 844 .20 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 1 through October 15 and paid on October 20, 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 10/20/00 Checks 247329-247639 $ 267, 691 . 91 10/20/00 Advices 101710-102335 963 , 216 . 67 $1, 230 , 908 . 58 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 3 , 2000 : Date Check Numbers Amount 11/3/00 Checks 247640-247966 $ 263 , 429 .23 11/3/00 Advices 102336-103008 939, 104 . 90 $1, 202 , 534 . 13 (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) LID Bond, Arbitrace Audit & Budget Chance. AUTHORIZA- TION for the Mayor to sign a contract with Arbitrage Compliance Specialists Inc . to audit 17 combined LIDS for the period of 1986 to 1998 and APPROVAL to establish a budget of $45 , 612 with funds from LID Guarantee Fund, as recommended by the Operations Committee . 8 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers of the Suburban Cities meeting and urged them to make reserva- tions early due to the holidays . She announced that the regular Council meeting in December will be on the 12th. She commended the staff members who worked on the budget . Operations Committee. Yingling noted that the committee will meet at 4 : 00 p.m. on December 5th and that the 2001 budget will be discussed. He encouraged anyone with concerns to get them in early so that research can be done prior to the meeting. Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the committee will meet only once in December at 5 : 00 p.m. on the llth. He also noted that the railroad has applied to the WUTC to close Titus Street and said the Council will continue their resistance to this project . Mayor White agreed. Planning Committee . Brotherton noted that the committee will meet December 11 at 4 : 00 p.m. and will discuss the agricultural lands policy and potential restrictions on temporary structures . Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Councilmembers of an executive session regarding negotiations on pro- perty acquisition and labor negotiations, and requested the addition of potential litigation. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS (ITEM 11A) (ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF MIKE HANSFORD) Light Pole. Mike Hansford, representing Sue Hansford, 26311 116th Avenue SE, explained that when the 277th corridor was done, a light pole was placed adjacent to her driveway and that she has not received a response to her compliant . He suggested a hold harmless agreement and the Public Works Director and City Attorney agreed to work with Mr. Hansford on this situation. 9 Kent City Council Minutes November 21, 2000 CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS (ITEM 11B) (ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF TED KOGITA) Borden Property. Ted KoQita, 25227 Reith Road, expressed concern about funding for the Borden site, and noted that the economy is slowing. (ITEM 11C) (ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF ROBERT O ' BRIEN) Borden Property. Robert O'Brien, 1131 Seattle Street, said the Department of Ecology' s ranking of the Borden site is the highest possible and that some factors contributing to that rank are the large quantity of material stored on the site, toxicity, railroad mobility, and the proximity to the site of the Springbrook Creek fishery resource . He expressed hope that the Council would not absolve the property seller and have taxpayers pay for it . McFall explained that an environmental assessment on the site will be done which includes sampling and thorough review of the types of materials and chemicals used at the site . He added that the report confirms the find- ings of the Borden Company' s review, and that the site is extraordinarily clean. He explained the small areas which will require special handling, and the factors which determined the ranking. He concluded by noting that purchasing the site increases the safety of the area and that there is nothing there which results in any concerns about the redevelopment potential of the property. EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting recessed to executive session at 8 : 20 p.m. and reconvened at 9 : 15 p.m. Labor Negotiations. YINGLING MOVED that upon final review and approval of the City Attorney' s Office, the Council authorizes the Mayor to sign a three-year collective bargaining agreement with the Driver Salesmen and warehousemen ' s Teamsters Union Local 117, effective January 1 , 2000 through December 31, 2002 . Woods seconded and the motion carried. 10 Kent City Council Minutes November 21 , 2000 ADJOURNMENT ORR MOVED to adjourn at 9 :20 p.m. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Brenda Jacober CMC City Clerk 11 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LID 354 , WASHINGTON AVENUE HOV LANES AND MEEKER STREET WIDENING IMPROVEMENT - RESOLUTION OF INTENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, passage of Resolution No. for the creation of LID 354 (Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvement) and setting January 2 , 2001 as the public hearing date on LID formation. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee, Public Works Director memorandum and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6C DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee i FROM: Don Wickstronk SUBJECT: LID #354 - Resolution of Intent Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements The proposed project will improve Washington Avenue between Hawley Road (S. 251 st St.) and James Street and will improve Meeker Street between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South. The project includes the following improvements on Washington Avenue: l. High Occupancy Vehicle lane northbound between Willis and Meeker Street 2. High Occupancy Vehicle lane southbound between Smith and Willis Street 3. Concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks 4. Installation of street trees 5. Upgrade existing signals at Willis Street (SR-516) and Meeker Street 6. Right turn only lane northbound at Willis Street 7. New storm pump station and bioswale near Green River bridge 8. Upgrades to the existing illumination system The following improvements will be included on Meeker Street: 1 . Widen roadway to provide new general purpose travel lane eastbound and westbound (5 lanes total) ?. Concrete curbs, gutter and 10 foot sidewalks 3. Upgrade and relocate existing signal at 64th Avenue South 4. Exclusive right-turn onlv lane from southbound 64th Avenue to westbound Meeker Street 5. Upgrades to the existing illumination system 6. Landscaping Project Funding It is proposed that the project be funded 10.79% by LID 354. The current cost estimate is as follows: Total Project Cost $3,994,388 Funding: Grant funding (TIB: $1,758,400 Citv funds $1,746,000 Misc. other funding $ 58,862 LID funds $ 431,126 Total $3,994,388 LID share of project cost $ 431,126 LID financing and misc. costs $ 49,274 LID Total $ 480,400 MOTION: Recommend to full Council passage of the Resolution of Intent for the creation of LID 354 which sets January 2, 2001 as the public hearing date on the said L.I.D. formation. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, declaring its intention to order the construction of the Meeker Street widening and Washington Avenue HOV lanes improvements project and to create a local improvement district to assess a part of 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 to be held on January 2,2001. 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, by the construction of the Meeker Street widening and Washington Avenue HOV lanes 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 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 $3,994,388 and approximately $3,513,988 of that cost and expense shall be paid by the City and the balance thereof ($480,400) shall be borne 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. 1 LID 354 Street Improvements 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 its entirety 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 object to the improvements are notified to appear and present those objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in Kent, Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on January 2, 2001, which time and place are fixed for hearing all matters relating to the improvements and all 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 January 2, 2001, all data and information required by law to be submitted. /i 2 LID 354 Street Improvements PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, this day of December, 2000. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of December, 2000. 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 , 2000. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 LID 354 Street Improvements EXHIBIT `A' Boundary Legal Description LID #354 Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements (Hawley Road to James Street and 641h Avenue to Washington Avenue) LOT 1 BLOCK 7 KENTHURST ADD LESS ST AND LOT 9 BLOCK 7 KENTHURST ADD TGW POR OF VAC ST ADJ AND ALSO THE NORTH 85 FT OF TRACT 24 EXC WEST 17 FT CONVEYED TO CITY OF KENT BY DEED UNDER REC NO 9409141218 IN MEEKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT AND ALSO THE NORTH 1/2 LESS ST OF FOLG-N 340 FT OF TRACT 24 LESS NORTH 85 FT THOF & LESS ANY POR WITHIN SOUTH 71 FT OF SD TR LESS EAST 296 FT IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE SOUTH 1/2 OF TRACT 24 LESS NORTH 85 FT & LESS SOUTH 71 FT IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE NORTH 168.5 FT OF SOUTH 303 FT OF TRACT 23 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THAT PORTION TR 16 S OF ELY PROD OF NORTH LN OF SOUTH 134.5 FT OF TR 23 & WLY OF ST HWY FOR TR 17 LY WLY OF ST HWY ALL OF TR 20 TR 21 LESS W 80 FT OF S 133 FT & N 80 FT OF TR 22 & S 134.5 FT OF TR 23 ALL IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE WEST 80 FT OF SOUTH 133 FT OF TRACT 21 & SOUTH 133 FT OF TRACT 22 LESS ST HWY ALL IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE LOTS 1-2 & WEST 10 FT OF 3, BLOCK A, ALL IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE NORTH 1/2 OF LOTS 23 THRU 30, BLOCK A, MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOTS 23 THRU 30, BLOCK A, MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO PARCEL 1 OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP 78-36 RECORDING NO 7812190862 SD PLAT DAF - FOR TR 43 MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO POR OF LOT 43 DAF - POR LY WLY OFST HWY 5-M & SLY OFALN798FTSOFNLNSDTR & NOF SIR 516 LESS W 777.98 FT THOF IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOT 2 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT SP-83-7 REC NO 8409270783 SD PLAT DAF - POR TR 43 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOT 1 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT SP-83-7 REC NO 8409270783 SD LOT DAF - POR LOT 43 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOT 3 OF CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT SP-83-7 REC NO 8409270783 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - POR LOT 43 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE SOUTH 150 FT OF EAST 150 FT OF TRACT 28 LESS FOR AWARDED TO CITY OF KENT BY DECREE ENTERED 23 AUG 1989 IN KING CO SUP CT CAUSE NO 89-2-00067-9 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOT 28 LESS SOUTH 150 FT OF EAST 150 FT & FOR OF 27 & 29 LY SOUTH OF WLY PROD OF S MGN OF SHINN ST LESS POR OF 29 LY WEST OF LN BEG ON SOUTH LN 819.17 FT WEST OF SE COR TR 28 TH NORTH 00-20- 17 WEST TO NORTH LN THOF IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOT 2 CITY OF KENT SP 81-11 REC#8204290391 SD SP DAF- SOUTH 220.37 FT OF TRACT 26 SD SUBD LESS STREET IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOTS 3 & 4 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-81-11 RECORDING NO. 8204290391 BEING A PORTION OF LOT 26 IN MEEKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT _ AND ALSO LOT 1 CITY OF KENT SP 81-11 REC #8204290391 SD SP DAF-SOUTH 220.37 FT OF TRACT 26 SD SUBD LESS ST IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO LOTS 1, 2 & 3 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-89-12 (WASHtNGTON AVENUE SHORT PLAT) RECORDING NO 9004191530 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF TRACT 25 & 26 IN MEEKERS SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT AND ALSO THE NORTH 161.70 FEET OF SOUTH 225.85 FEET OF TRACT 25 EXCEPT WEST 222.8 FEET OF NORTH 50.50 FEET IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THAT PORTION LOT 3 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-74-12 (SPEC 74-11) RECORDING NO 7501100471 DAF: BEGIN AT SOUTHWEST CORNER SAID LOT 3 THENCE NORTH 89-37-13 EAST ALONG SOUTH LINE THEREOF 164.07 FEET THENCE NORTH 00-22-47 WEST 124.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 89-37-13 WEST 160.43 FEET TO WEST LINE SAID LOT 3 THENCE SOUTH 01-18-11 WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 124.05 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING (AKA LOT 3 CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LL-86-8 RECORDING NO. 8608100973) EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED TO CITY OF KENT BY DEEDS UNDER REC NOS 9004252295 & 9004252296 BEING A PORTION LOT 29 IN SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF MEEKER'S FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT AND ALSO LOT 1 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-95-15 (PARK COURT) RECORDING NO 9511291035 BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 29 IN MEEKER'S FIRST ADDITION TO KENT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT AND ALSO LOT 2 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-95-15 (PARK COURT) RECORDING NO 9511291035 BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 29 IN MEEKER'S FIRST ADDITION TO KENT SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT AND ALSO THE EAST 15 FEET OF LOT 38 TGW 39 LESS POR DAF - BEG NE COR SD LOT 39 THENCE WEST 150 FEET THENCE SOUTH 109 FEET THENCE EAST 104 FEET THENCE SELY TO PT ON EAST LN SD LOT 39 DIST 132 FEET SOUTH OF NORTHEAST COR LESS ST IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THAT POR SD LOT DAF=BEG NE COR SD LOT THENCE WEST 150 FEET THENCE SOUTH 109 FEET THENCE EAST 104 FEET THENCE SELY TO PT ON EAST LN SE LOT 39 DIST 132 FEET SOUTH OF NORTHEAST COR THEREOF THENCE NORTH TO BEG LESS STREET IN LOT 39 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE EAST 112 LOT 37 LESS WEST 10 FEET AND LESS NORTH 10 FEET FOR ST TGW LOT 38 LESS EAST 15 FEET AND LESS NORTH 10 FEET FOR ST IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THAT PORTION OF LOT 37 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 1/2 TGW WEST 10 FEET OF EAST 1/2 LESS STREET HWY ALL IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE EAST 90 FEET OF LOT 36 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO THE WEST 60 FEET OF LOT 36 IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT AND ALSO A PORTION OF LOT 35 IN MEEKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT DAF: BEGINNING AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 'A' IN INSTRUMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 9609091262 SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE ALONG ELY LINE OF SAID TRACT FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: SOUTH 00-38-23 WEST 80.05 FEET THENCE SOUTH 04-47-31 WEST 175.90 FEET TO POINT ON SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE NORTH 89-38-02 EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 95.30 FEET TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE NORTH 00-37-37 EAST ALONG EAST LINE THEREOF 255.34 FEET TO NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE SOUTH 89-34-40 WEST ALONG NORTH LINE THEREOF 82.51 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING (AKA REVISED PARCEL 'A' AS DESCRIBED AND DELINEATED PER CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LL-96-31 RECORDING NO. 9612161402) AND ALSO THE EAST 71.20 FEET OF LOT 31 & ALL OF LOTS 32, 33, 34 & 35 IN MEEKER'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENT; TGW PORTION PARCEL 1 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-76-13 RECORDING NO 7701130512 LYING NLY OF FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT NE CORNER SAID PARCEL 1 THENCE SOUTH 00-40-32 WEST ALONG EAST LINE THEREOF 354.82 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE NORTH 89-21-55 WEST 519.00 FEET THENCE NORTH 02-10-03 EAST 58.31 FEET THENCE NORTH 88-02-35 WEST 229.97 FEET TO EAST MARGIN OF 64TH AVENUE SOUTH &TERMINUS OF LINE; EXCEPT PORTION SAID PARCEL 1 & SAID LOT 35 DAF: BEGINNING AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 CITY OF KENT SHORT PLAT NO SP-76-13 THENCE SOUTH 00-40-31 WEST ALONG EAST LINE THEREOF 354.82 FEET THENCE NORTH 89-21-55 WEST 29.08 FEET THENCE NORTH 00-37- 26 EAST 354.31 FEET TO SOUTH LINE OF LOT 34 SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT OF MEEKER'S FIRST ADDITION TO TOWN OF KENTS THENCE NORTH 89-38-02 EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 2.81 FEET TO SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF THENCE NORTH 00-37-31 EAST ALONG EAST LINE THEREOF 34.46 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE NORTH 04-52- 45 EAST 141.98 FEET THENCE NORTH 00-36-39 EAST 79.33 FEET TO NORTH LINE OF LOT 35 OF SAID PLAT THENCE NORTH 89-34-40 EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 139.49 FEET TO EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE SOUTH 00-37-37 WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 255.34 FEET TO SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 35 THENCE SOUTH 89-38-02 WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 123.40 FEET TO NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 & TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING (AKA REVISED PARCEL 'B' AS DESCRIBED & DELINEATED PER CITY OF KENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LL-96-31 RECORDING NO 9612161402) EXCEPT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO CITY OF KENT BY DEED UNDER RECORDING NO 9706091555 DAF: BEGINNING AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID REVISED PARCEL 'B' THENCE NORTH 89-34-40 EAST ALONG NORTH LINE THEREOF 531.75 FEET TO NORTHEST CORNER OF SAID REVISED PARCEL 'B' THENCE SOUTH 00-36-39 WEST ALONG EAST LINE THEREOF 14 FEET THENCE SOUTH 89-34-40 WEST 531.76 FEET TO WEST LINE OF SAID REVISED PARCEL 'B' THENCE NORTH 00-37-17 EAST ALONG WEST LINE THEREOF 14 FEET TO TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND ALSO THE NORTH 250 FEET OF FOLG LOTS 30 LESS WEST 30 FEET & 31 LESS EAST 71.2 FEET LESS ST ALL IN MEEKERS SUPL PLAT 1ST ADD TO KENT END OF DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "B" DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS LID 354 - Washington Avenue HOV Lanes and Meeker Street Widening Improvements (Hawley Road to James Street and 64th Avenue to Washington Avenue) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project will improve Washington Avenue between Hawley Road (S. 251st St.) and James Street and will improve Meeker Street between Washington Avenue and 64th Avenue South. The project includes the following improvements on Washington Avenue: 1. High Occupancy Vehicle lane northbound between Willis and Meeker Street 2. High Occupancy Vehicle lane southbound between Smith and Willis Street 3. Concrete curbs, gutter and sidewalks 4. Installation of street trees 5. Upgrade existing signals at Willis Street (SR-516) and Meeker Street 6. Right turn only lane northbound at Willis Street 7. New storm pump station and bioswale near Green River bridge 8. Upgrades to the existing illumination system The following improvements will be included on Meeker Street: 1. Widen roadway to provide new general purpose travel lane eastbound and westbound (5 lanes total) 2. Concrete curbs, gutter and 10 foot sidewalks 3. Upgrade and relocate existing signal at 64th Avenue South 4. Exclusive right-turn only lane from southbound 64th Avenue to westbound Meeker Street 5. Upgrades to the existing illumination system 6. Landscaping Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 155TH AVENUE S .E. STREET VACATION STV-2000-2 - RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATE (KIVA 42003931) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Passage of Resolution No. / setting January 16, 2000, as the date for a public hearing on the 155th Avenue Street Vacation. A petition for this street vacation was filed on October 31 , 2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom \)v SUBJECT: 15511 Avenue S.E. Street Vacation We have received a valid petition to vacate a portion of 155th Avenue S.E. In accordance with state law, a public hearing must be held. As such the Public Works Department recommends adoption of a Resolution setting the public hearing date. MOTION: Recommend Council adoption of a resolution setting a public hearing date of January 16tn for the 155t"Avenue S.E. street vacation. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, regarding the vacation of a portion of 155th Avenue SE(as shown on "The Edwall A.Rask Addition," (King County Recording No. 4453187) and generally known as 154th Avenue SE) and setting the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for January 16, 2001. WHEREAS, a petition, attached hereto as Exhibit"A,"has been filed by DFM, LLC, to vacate a portion of 155th Avenue SE (as shown on "The Edwall A. Rask Addition" Vol. 53 of Plats, Page 11, King County Recorder No. 4453187 (and generally known as 154th Avenue SE)), a dedicated, opened street lying generally north of its intersection with 274`h Street SE (as shown on "The Edwall A. Rask Addition" Vol. 53 of Plats, Page 11, King County Recorder No. 4453187 (and generally known as 275th Avenue SE)) in the City of Kent, King County, Washington; and WHEREAS, the petitioner, DFM, LLC, owns at least two-thirds of the property abutting that portion of 155`h Avenue SE that is now being sought to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 Street Vacation —155th Avenue SE SECTION 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting the vacation of a portion of 155th Avenue SE shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, January 16, 2001, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, 98032. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by state law, Ch. 35.79 RCW. SECTION 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection or other information from the Public Works Department and other appropriate departments and shall transmit information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 12, 2000. PASSED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this_ day of December, 2000. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of December, 2000. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 Street Vacation —1 SSth Avenue SE I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, on the day of , 2000. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P Ti"Mmolmion�STVAC 155th Avmu<SE.dOc 3 Street Vacation — 1 SSth Avenue SE 1vU L. UU IVL 11•JU 1101 ., i13E ENSINEER W, lNr. FOX 140. 253 e33 4053 Aug. 22 2000 10:23Rn P2 of 1, OCT rA'r.ctr KIVA a: �X 3`/•�PMY of lrr.. Mayor Jim White CLE�KT MAIL TO: APPLICANT: nn CITY OF KENT NAME: Property Management �" r� 220 S.41h Avenue ADDRESS: (y3Z& S 1= Z'-t �K t>Sl Kent,Washington 98032 Attn: Icrry McCaughan t 90117- PHONE: 2010-zql�,5 '295f7 STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION Dcar Mayor and Kent City Council: We,the undersigned abutting property owners,hereby respectfully request that certain S95= AFIA[1Zu{ti--9 hereby be vacated. Legal Description of Strcet/Alley Sought to be Vacated (Must Contain Total Square Feet of Arca Sought To Be Vacated) BRIEF STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT CURRENT" titic report must be submitted with this application that covers all theng properties contiguousWto alley or street sought to be vacated. Whenrations, Parincrships etc. aro being signed for, then proof of individual's authorityn for same shall also be submitted. Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than I"—200' of the area sought for va.ation. (NOTE)Map must correspond with legal description. ABU N G PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT# IG�/A�T S AND ADDRESSES LOT,BLOCK&PLATISEC.TWN.RG. L,-C_ '/ 'I 1 fa ZZO —OOZG "1: ✓ ro a ut_ -71re22o-0o _ 14� 3 5-2 z v S-q l 3 `i' /* l a� S 150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. ---Land Value Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. eed Accepted Date Tradc Accepted Date S"'"" EXHIBIT A CITY OF KENT FEE LISTING 220 4TH AVENUE SOUTH REPORT: bprp05 KENT, WA 98032 RUN DATE: 27-OCT-2000 03 : 05 PM PERMIT: RESV 2003931 STATUS: OPEN ACCEPTED BY: FGRE ENTERED: 27-OCT-20 ISSUED BY: FGRE EXPIRES: 24-FEB-20M 9 PERMIT NAME: LFU (f SITE ES3_ 27220 154 AVE SE APPLICANT: DFM, LLC ,r, Vol - COMPANY: ^1 C'TM_?,- KENT ADDRESS: 14326 SE 243RD ST. CITY/STATE2IP: KENT, WA 98042 E-MAIL: WORK PHONE: EXTN: FAX: HOME PHONE: 206-409-2959 OWNER INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ADDRESS: TYPE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ITY/STATE2IP: CONTACT: PHONE: CONTACT PHONE: FAX: ROLE: E-MAIL: STATUS: FEE QTY TOTAL PAID 7VAC - STREET VACATION APPLICATION FEE $150 .00 Total Fees: $150 .00 Total Paid: $0 .00 Total Due: $150 .00 CITY OF KENT �•/ KENT " '"'"°"' PERMIT RECEIPT RECEIPT NUMBER: 00-11510 PERMIT: RESV 2003931 DATE ISSUED: 27-OCT-2000 APN: 7162200030 ^ R SCOPE: STREET VACATION 1 SITE ADDRESS: 27220 154 AVE SE i�' ,`- OCT U SUBDIVISION: RASK EDWALL A ADD CITY: KENT, WA 98031 7 ^CIn• O LEENT CITY RK OWNER: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: Fee Code Description Paid to Date This Receipt EVAC STREET VACATION APPLICATION FEE $0. 00 $150.00 Totals: $0. 00 $150.00 Payment Code Description Amount CHE°" MC CAIN, CHRISTOPHER B #6916 $150.00 Change: $0.00 Balance: $0.00 Pavment Distribution by Division Business Licensing $0.00 Development Services $0.00 Engineering $150.00 Fire Prevention $0.00 Planning Services $0.00 POE Engineering, Inc. CIVIL A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGICONSULTING 1314 STH STREET N.E..SUITE 102 AUBURN,WASHINGTON 98002 (253)SM 4052 • FAX(253)833-4053 rl LFdu L J U OBI CITY OF KENT REASON FOR VACATION CITY CLEF;►( THE VACATION IS SOUGHT TO ALIGN THE RESIDENTIAL ROAD SYSTEM WITH THE VARIED ZONING IN THE VICINITY. THE PARCELS ALONG S .E . 272ND STREET ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND THE PARCELS TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL PROJECTS HAS PRECLUDED THE USE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS STREET (154TH AVENUE S .E. ) . THE PROPOSED VACATION WILL TERMINATE THE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS STREET AT THE POINT WERE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS IS LAST_.RE.QUIRED_ANJ) CREATE_-THE -DES-LRED--BUF-FERING FROM THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES TO THE NORTH. THE VACATED AREA IS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED -� BINDING SITE PLAN FOR THE SODS CREEK CENTER PROJECT (BUILDING APPLICATIONS #2000581 & #2000583) . ADDITIONAL R.O .W. IS PROPOSED TO BE DEDICATED TO RELOCATE THE CUL-DE- SAC TO THE SOUTHERLY TERMINATION OF THE ROADWAY. EXHIBIT "A" OCT 3 1 L ' CITY OF KENT PROPOSED VACATED RIGHT OF WAY FOR 155th AVENUE S .E. : CITY CLERK FORTENBERRY TO CITY OF KENT: (- '- THAT PORTION OF THE PLAT OF EDWALL A. RASK ADDITION TO KING COUNTY WASHINGTON, RECORDED IN VOLUME 53 OF PLATS AT PAGE 11, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF 274T" STREET SOUTHEAST AND 155" AVENUE SOUTHEAST ACCORDING WITH THE HEREIN DESCRIBED SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 00050' 33" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 155T" AVENUE SOUTHEAST, A DISTANCE OF 681 . 93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89009' 27" EAST, 10 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30050' 33" EAST, 40 . 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 40 . 00 FEET, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 30050' 30" WEST AND WHICH POINT IS THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, NORTH 00050' 33" EAST, 27 . 56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 40 . 00 FEET, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 39059' 41" WEST; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT NORTHEASTERLY, NORTHWESTERLY, AND SOUTHWESTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 239036' 16" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167 . 28 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST LINE SOUTH 00050133" WEST, 2 . 12 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 170 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 88043' 00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 3 . 00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 3 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 00050' 33" WEST, 95 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 95 . 00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 260 . 00 FEET OF THE NORTH 430 FEET OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 88 °43' 00" EAST, 3 . 00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT OF EDWALL A RASK ADDITION; TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 40 . 00 FEET, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89009' 27" EAST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 120000100" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83 . 78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. n KRA: pay/cjs OCT rn 9/25/2000 l �«u0 2118VacRowl.00C TM 00 CI Y KENT FL t� tmM 09-24-O EXHIBIT "A" CONTINUED : PROPOSED VACATED RIGHT OF WAY FOR 155' AVENUE S .E . : _ PAGE 2 OF 2 W. LINE. LOT 5 k W. LINE OF PLATTED EXHIBIT "B" / SUBDIWSION OF EDWALL A. RASK ADDIAON ?PROPOSED VACATED 5 A PORTION OF THE EOWALL A. RASK ADDITION \ RIGHT-GIB-WAY LOT 5 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON \ L—OT� LOCATED IN THE NE 114 OF TH£ NW 114 I OF S£C77ON 35, TWP 21 N, R. 5 E. W.M. 33 0 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON o g PROPOSED AD0177ONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY n I 6 PROJECT No. 2118 CENTER OF PROPOSED DRAWING No. 2118new-cuidesoc 40 2.dwg 1 CUL-DE-SAC LOT 6 DATE: SEPTE►dBER 19, 20Q1 e LOT 7 SCALE: 1"=100' 2� 301 1 30 / DRAWN BY: RKE/WEL 7 CHECKED BY: KRA a SEE DETAIL "A " W SHEET 2 OF 2 L>_i c6 8 W d' > 00 Q C r- U In r �+ 00 00 9 R o � ��4 wAy� 0 o, (P) PLAT ISTt4�' L L1S� (M) MEASURED EXPIRES: 9/24/01 30 30' (C) CALCULATED j{Er1NETI4 R. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES. INC. S.'.)400. Mapong and Land P/onning• P.O. eox 4773 1 Feaeml Way, Washington 9aO63-4 t 73 O Oes Moines (253) 938-II99 rn 274TH STREET S.E. FAX m2s)ei828164 6 SHEET 1 OF 2 IW. UNE, 101 5 & W. LINE OF PLATTED SUBDIW901V OF EDWALL A. RASI( ADDITION »A „ DETAIL �, 6 7 .28 ,' R SCALE.- 1' = 30' �, _ 39 • 40 0 C T 3 I PROPOSED 36 1�O. C./))r ' ?Gli v R/CNT-OF-WAY VACATED6'•. C/I ,��e� 2.12' S00'50'33"W 10.00' LINE, N. 170' N88'45'45" LOT 5 LOT 6 \N9. 0 W 7Ts si9. O O I � \�>a �� 0 00 0'M L0 00 16 \ 4r� w� rn I Z o M 27.56' 33' Z 30' NGO*50'33"E � M I 40. 00' ._ R� TRUE POINT OF t - I 1$ Q'00,00p, f _ BEGINNING `Iffy, f s �12 PROPOSED "1L LAB O �// .`P ( �� ADDIAONAL EXPIRES: 9/24/Ot U') �� O/ O R1CNT-OF-WAY CENTER OF � � •OO I O ✓ PROPOSED O - S LINE, N 95; S 260', N. 4J0' CUL-DE-SAC �/ W O 10.00 o °N° N S89009'27"E PROJECT No. 2118 O Mj' h� DRAWING No. 2118new—culdesoc 2CF2.dwg 3.00' I Z /. v DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 S88'43'00"E SCALE: 1"=30' ✓ .r DRAWN BY: WEL 30' ( 30' LOT 6 CHECKED BY: KRA LOT 7 i KENNETH R. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES. INC. Surnying, Mapping and Land Planning P.O. BOX 417J Federal Way. Warhinglon 98063-4 1 7J Der wo%ner (15J) 838-1199 Tacoma (253) 272-9858 FAX (25J) 8J8-8164 I SHEET 2 OF 2 W. LINE, LOT 5 & W. LlNf OF PLATTED SUBWNSION OF EDWALL A. RASK ADDITION DETAIL "A •• A 67. 28' R, SCALE.- 1' = JO' -2 �40 O k. D 6. O. ACA TEQ \ G R1 \�2 \� W � S00 �0 3 W,\ S. LINE, N. 170' \ 8 .4�4 ,�W LOT 5 \ � � LOT 6 Lri \ <y R. a) oo rn \ 27.56' 3 ' 0 N00.50'33"E . 00. •00'0 �• �� TRUE POINT OF 00 1 O 0 BEGINNING d f Is PROPOSED LAl� O .`P I ��/ ADDITIONAL EXPIRES: 9/24/01 V) �� 0/ RICH T-OF-WAY Q CENTER OFF�O f 00 ✓ PROPOf- � O CUC-Df-SAC =/ lLJ 0 S. LINE, N 95; S. ?60; N. 430 O 0.00'- 0 C%4 `NJ S89.09'27"E °' �� PROJECT No. 2118 O O tij' A, DRAWING No. 2118new-culdesoc 20F2.dwg 3.01 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 S88043'00"E SCALE: 1"=30' .4 DRAWN BY: WEL 30' I 30' LOT 6 CHECKED BY: KRA LOT 7 I KENNETH R. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Sarwy/ng, Yapping and Land Planning P.O. BOX 417J Federal Way, Washinglon 98063-4 1 73 Des Moines (253) 838-1199 Tacoma (25J) 272-9858 FAX (25J) 838-8154 I SHEET 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR 155' AVENUE S .E . : FORTENBERRY TO CITY OF KENT: THAT PORTION OF LOT 6 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF EDWALL A. RASK ADDITION TO KING COUNTY WASHINGTON, RECORDED IN VOLUME 53 OF PLATS AT PAGE 11, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, BEING MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF 274TH STREET SOUTHEAST AND 155TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST ACCORDING WITH THE HEREIN DESCRIBED SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 00050' 33" EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 155T" AVENUE SOUTHEAST, A DISTANCE OF 681 . 93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89009' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 '50' 33" EAST, 40 . 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 40 . 00 FEET, THE RADIAL CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 30050' 33" WEST AND WHICH POINT IS THE WEST LINE OF LOT 6 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWESTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 120000' 00" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 83 . 78 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE NORTH 00 '50' 33" EAST, 69 . 28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. KRA: pay/C35 �V 9/25/2000 211BAdd1Row1.DCC R. EAM1Et �Q� UW Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: GREEN/DUWAMISH AND LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR RIVER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS- AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, authorize the Mayor to sign the Green/Duwamish and Lake Washington/Cedar River Interlocal Agreements upon the City Attorney and the Public Works Director concurring with the language therein. These agreements will provide the management structure and funding mechanism to successfully complete the development of the Salmon Conservation Plans . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and interlocal agreements 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 2000 T0: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom & SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreements: WRIA9 (Green/Duwamish) and WRIA8 (Lake Washington/Cedar River) As part of the Puget Sound Region's response to the listing of the Puget Sound Chinook and the Bull Trout under the Endangered Species Act, the jurisdictions have organized within watershed areas (WRIAS, Water Resource Inventory Areas) to develop Salmon Conservation Plans, The City of Kent has interests in two watersheds, the Green/Duwamish watershed and the Lake Washington /Cedar River watershed. We have been actively involved in the regional efforts at both a political and technical level since the onset of these efforts. The enclosed Interlocal Agreements have been developed over the past year to provide both the management structure and funding mechanism to successfully complete the development of the Salmon Conservation Plans for the Green/Duwamish Watershed and the Lake Washington/Cedar River Watershed. I have provided a one page summary for the Interlocal Agreements. The City of Kenfs cost-share for 2001 is $54,210.00 for WRIA 9(Green /Duwamish) and $363.00 for WRIA 8(Lake Washington/Cedar). I am requesting that the Public Works Committee recommend to Council approval of both Interlocal Agreements, subject to the final review by the City Attorney. I will provide any additional information or explanation required MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Green/Duwamish and Lake Washington/Cedar River Interlocal Agreements upon the City Attorney and the Public Works Director concurring with the language therein. W2064 WRIA ILA: A Summary (10/5/00) _ Main:Purposes: ♦ To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review, and approval of WRIA-based salmon conservation plans ♦ To provide a mechanism for securing additional technical assistance and funding from state and federal agencies and other sources ♦ To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality, and flood projects, using any regional, state, federal, and non-profit funds that may be contributed to or accumulated by the WRIA Forums ♦ To develop and articulate WRIA-based state and federal legislative positions on salmon habitat conservation and funding ♦ To provide for on-going participation of citizens and other stakeholders in these efforts, and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA activities ♦ To meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA-based planning, in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding,permitting, or other state or federal program. Key Provisions: ♦ Effective Date: Goal is January 1, 2001. ♦ Term: Five years, with annual review and approval of work program and budget. ♦ Organization: • Newly configured WRIA Forums consist of one elected official from all participating local governments in the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA). ■ WRIA Forums establish 5-member Management Committee to shape, direct, oversee, and evaluate implementation of ILA and expenditure of ILA-generated funds ■ King County is initial ILA service provider and fiscal agent ♦ Cost-Sharing: Each party shall contribute funds under the ILA, based on a formula that averages population, geographic area, and assessed valuation. ♦ Voting Procedures: Decisions are made by consensus. When consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by a double-majority voting procedure, which requires a majority of the overall votes,plus a majority of the votes weighted by the parry's financial contribution. ♦ Plan Development, Review, Approval, and Ratification: • WRIA Steering Committees, comprised of balance of watershed stakeholders, develop proposed WRIA-based salmon conservation plans; ■ WRIA Forums, comprised of elected officials from participating local governments, review, remand if appropriate, and adopt WRIA Plan: ■ WRIA Plans ratified by individual local governments • Once ratified, WRIA Forums transmit WRIA Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action ♦ Latecomers: After 12 months from effectiveness date, latecomers to the ILA may join only with the written consent of all parties. ♦ Termination: The ILA may be terminated at any time by written agreement of all parties. A single parry may terminate its participation upon 60 days notice. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 8 PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King and Snohomish County, lying wholly or partially within the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area ("WRIA") 8, which includes all or portions of the Lake Washington- Cedar, Sammamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively, for those signing this agreement, "parties"). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 8 and wish to provide for planning,funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the Counties of King and Snohomish and the Cities of Bellevue, Bothell, Brier, Clyde Hill, Edmonds, Everett, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Maple Valley, Medina, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Newcastle, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seattle, Shoreline, Woodinville, Woodway and the Towns of Beaux Arts, Hunts Point and Yarrow Point. 1.2 WRIA 8 FORUM: The WRIA 8 Forum created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of eligible jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become parties to this Agreement. 1.3 WRIA 8 STEERING COMMITTEE: The WRIA 8 Steering Committee referred to herein is the cooperative representational body comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. 1.4 WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS: WRIA-based Watershed Plans as referred to herein are those documents to be developed for WRIA 8 including its sub-basins which recommend actions related to watershed protection, restoration and salmon recovery. 1.5 WRIA SUB-FORUMS: WRIA Sub-Forums as referred to herein are those cooperative representational bodies currently meeting and working on issues, preparing plans and implementing projects within watersheds. These groups are comprised of elected officials from the general purpose governments located within the watershed. 1 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM 1.6 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of five (5) elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 8 Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5, and charged with staff oversight and administrative duties on the WRIA 8 Forum's behalf. 1.7 SERVICE PROVIDER: Service Provider, as used herein, means that agency, government, consultant or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and for the WRIA 8 Forum, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a party to this Agreement. 1.8 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government who performs all accounting services for the WRIA 8 Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.9 STAKEHOLDERS— Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within the WRIA who reflect the diverse interests integral for planning for the recovery of the listed species under the Endangered Species Act, which may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review and approval of WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. Such plans shall include reconnaissance, assessment and analysis of conditions and recommendations for the _ WRIA Forum. It is understood that the maximum financial or resource obligation of any participating eligible jurisdiction under this Agreement shall be limited to its share of the cost of developing the WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from state agencies or other sources. 2.3 To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality and flood projects with regional, state, federal and non-profit funds as may be contributed to the WRIA 8 Forum. 2.4 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the parties on issues relating to the WRIA or sub-WRIA planning or to meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA-based or watershed basin planning in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies, at the discretion of such party to this Agreement. 2.5 To develop and articulate WRIA-based positions on salmon habitat, conservation and funding to state and federal legislators. 2 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM 2.6 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA efforts. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual jurisdiction or water quality policy bodies such as the Regional Water Quality Committee. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by at least nine (9)of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the affected population, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of five(5)years; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the parties may agree to in writing. 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 8 FORUM. The parties to this Agreement hereby establish a governing body for WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington-Cedar and Sammamish watershed basins and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the"WRIA 8 Forum"the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA 8 Forum)to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to this agreement shall appoint one (1)elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 8 Forum. The WRIA 8 Forum is a voluntary association of the county and city governments located wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington-Cedar and Sammamish watershed basins and associated Puget Sound drainages who choose to be parties to this Agreement. 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 8 Forum, the WRIA 8 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according the voting provisions of Section 5, five (5)elected officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 8 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 8 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 8 Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section. 4.1.1 It is contemplated that services to the WRIA 8 Forum and WRIA 8 Steering Committee for the year 2001 shall be provided by Service Provider, King County Department of Natural Resources. The Management Committee shall 3 WRIA 8 ItA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with the Service Provider, to be approved by the WRIA 8 Forum,which shall set out the expectations for services so provided. Services should include, without limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff in increments no smaller than .5 FTE, description of any supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service Provider and the Management Committee concerning the performance of services hereunder. 4.1.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement, and the selection of the Management Committee, the Management Committee shall review existing work products and plans and make recommendations to the entire WRIA 8 Forum for action, including initial decisions related to work program, staffing and service agreements, and budget and financial operations, for the year 2001. All duties of the Management Committee shall be established by the WRIA 8 Forum. 4.2 The WRIA 8 Forum shall have the authority to establish and adopt the following: 4.2.1 The WRIA 8 Steering Committee shall develop and propose for consideration, amendment and adoption by the WRIA 8 Forum, a scope of work for development of WRIA-based Watershed Plans, including planning priorities for each year of this Agreement, and performance review of work under this Agreement. The scope of work may provide for certain tasks or processes to be the responsibility of the WRIA Sub-Forums. The scope of work shall specifically identify the level of staff support to be provided to the WRIA Sub-Forums in furtherance of their agreed upon tasks or processes. 4.2.2. The WRIA 8 Forum shall by September 1 of each year, establish and approve an annual budget, establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula shall be updated annually by the WRIA 8 Forum, as more current data becomes available. 4.2.3 The WRIA 8 Forum shall review and evaluate annually the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider(s) to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of the purposes of this Agreement. In evaluating the performance of any Service 4 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM Provider, at least every two years, the WRIA 8 Forum shall retain an outside consultant to perform a professional assessment of the work and services so provided. 4.2.4 The WRIA 8 Forum shall oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and shall allocate the utilization of resources contributed by each party or obtained from other sources in accordance with an annual prioritized list of planning activities within the WRIA during each year of this Agreement. 4.3 The WRIA 8 Forum may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies or any other entities for any lawful purpose related hereto. The parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purposes. 4.4 The WRIA 8 Forum shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. 5. VOTING. The WRIA 8 Forum shall make decisions, approve scope of work, budget, priorities and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each party agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the parties, or by a majority recommendation with a minority report. Any party who does not accept a majority decision may request weighted voting as set forth below. 5.2 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the WRIA 8 Forum, the WRIA 8 Forum shall take action on a dual-majority basis, as follows: 5.2.1 Each party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in connection with a proposed WRIA 8 Forum action. 5.2.2 The weighted vote of each party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the other parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution by each party set in accordance with Subsection 4.2.2 in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the parties to this Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the parties to this Agreement. No action shall be valid and binding on the parties to this Agreement until it shall receive majority votes of both the total number of parties to the Agreement and of the members representing a majority of the annual budget contribution for the year in which the vote is taken. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a"no"vote. 5 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM 6. CREATION, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS. WRIA-based Watershed Plans shall be developed, drafted and recommended by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, approved by the WRIA 8 Forum and subject to ratification by the legislative bodies of the parties to this Agreement, consistent with the following: 6.1 The WRIA 8 Forum shall appoint a WRIA 8 Steering Committee, comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. It is intended that representatives of local general purpose governments will continue to participate on the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. The WRIA 8 Steering Committee shall be responsible for the development and recommendation of WRIA- based Watershed Plans consistent with the purposes of this Agreement and shall act as an advisory body to the WRIA 8 Forum. Changes in the membership or composition of the WRIA 8 Steering Committee shall be made pursuant to the voting procedures in Section 5. The WRIA 8 Forum shall establish procedures for naming and replacing representatives on the WRIA 8 Steering Committee. 6.2 The WRIA 8 Forum shall act to approve or remand any final long-term WRIA-based Watershed Plan prepared and recommended by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee within ninety (90)days of receipt of the final plan, according to the voting procedures described in Section 5. 6.3 In the event that any plan is not so approved, it shall be returned to the WRIA 8 Steering Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 8 Forum for decision. 6.4 After approval of the plan by the WRIA 8 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution or ordinance of the jurisdiction's legislative body, by at least nine jurisdictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the total population of WRIA 8. Upon ratification, the WRIA 8 Forum shall transmit the WRIA-based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 6.5 In the event that either any state or federal agency to which such plans are submitted shall remand any such plan for further consideration, the plan shall be remanded to the WRIA 8 Forum for consideration, which may include further referral to the WRIA 8 Steering Committee for recommendation on amendments thereto. 6.6 The parties agree that no WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed and funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be forwarded separately by any of them to any state or federal agency unless it has been approved and ratified as provided herein. 7. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES: BUDGET: FISCAL AGENT: RULES. — 6 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM 7.1 Each party shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 8 Forum under this Agreement, including all such obligations related to WRIA 8 Forum and WRIA 8 Steering Committee funding, technical support, and participation in related planning projects and activities as set forth herein. It is anticipated that separate actions by the legislative bodies of the parties will be necessary from time to time in order to carry out these obligations. 7.2 The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A, which shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 7.3 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 8 Forum shall adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs, for the following calendar year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other(e.g. staffing) responsibilities of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized planning activities within the WRIA. The parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1 st of each such year. 7.4 Funds collected from the parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 8 Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as Fiscal Agent and as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 8 Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 8 Forum. Such rules and procedures shall set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. 8. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King or Snohomish County lying wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington-Cedar and Sammamish watershed basins and adjacent Puget Sound drainages which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 8 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs 7 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 8 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. 9. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by any party, as to that party only, upon sixty (60) days'written notice to the other parties. The terminating party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating party up to the effective date of such termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all parties. It is expected that the makeup of the parties to this Agreement may change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the parties choosing not to exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to meet its respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 8 Forum as reflected in the annual budget. 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this agreement, each party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees,while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever)arising out of or in any way resulting from such party's own negligent acts or omissions related to such party's participation and obligations under this agreement. Each party agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. 11. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the parties to this Agreement intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to any party's duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species Act, or any other act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 12. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in a WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed pursuant to this Agreement. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the parties to this Agreement from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, 8 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any party to this Agreement which is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the WRIA 8 Forum or any of the parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the parties to this Agreement, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. This Agreement has been approved for execution by appropriate action of each party's governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 9 WRIA 8 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/13/00-8:36 AM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT _ For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 9 PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King County, lying wholly or partially within the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area ("WRIA") 9,which includes all or portions of the Green-Duwamish and Central Puget Sound forums, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (collectively, for those signing this agreement, "parties"). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 9 and wish to provide for planning, funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. MUTUAL CONVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the County of King and the Cities and Towns of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Normandy Park, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila. 1.2 WRIA 9 FORUM: The WRIA 9 Forum created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of eligible jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become parties to this Agreement. 1.3 WRIA 9 STEERING COMMITTEE: The WRIA 9 Steering Committee referred to herein is the cooperative representational body comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. 1.4 WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS: WRIA-based Watershed Plans as referred to herein are those documents to be developed for WRIA 9 including its sub-basins which recommend actions related to watershed protection, restoration and salmon recovery. 1.5 WRIA SUB-FORUMS: WRIA Sub-Forums as referred to herein are those cooperative representational bodies currently meeting and working on issues, preparing plans and implementing projects within watersheds. These groups are comprised of elected officials from the general purpose governments located within the watershed. 1 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM 1.6 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of five (5)elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the WRIA 9 Forum, according to the voting procedures in Section 5, charged with certain oversight and administrative duties on the WRIA 9 Forum's behalf. 1.7 SERVICE PROVIDER: Service Provider, as used herein, means that agency, government, consultant or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and for the WRIA 9 Forum, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider may be a party to this Agreement. 1.8 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government who performs all accounting services for the WRIA 9 Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.9 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within the WRIA who reflect the diverse interests integral for planning for the recovery of the listed species under the Endangered Species Act, which may include but is not limited to environmental and business interests. 2. PURPOSES.The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the joint funding, development, review and approval of WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. Such plans shall include reconnaissance, assessment and analysis of conditions and recommendations for the WRIA Forum. It is understood that the maximum financial or resource obligation of any participating eligible jurisdiction under this Agreement shall be limited to its share of the cost of developing the WRIA-Based Watershed Plans. 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from state agencies or other sources. 2.3 To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other habitat, water quality and flood projects with regional, state, federal and non-profit funds as may be contributed to the WRIA 9 Forum. 2.4 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the parties on issues relating to the WRIA or sub-WRIA planning or to meet the requirement of a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA-based or watershed basin planning in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies, at the discretion of such party to this Agreement. 2.5 To develop and articulate WRIA-based positions on salmon habitat, conservation and funding to state and federal legislators. 2 WRIA 9 IIA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM 2.6 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA efforts. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual jurisdiction or water quality policy bodies such as the Regional Water Quality Committee. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by at least five (5) of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the affected population, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect for an initial term of five (5)years; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the parties may agree to in writing. 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 9 FORUM. The parties to this Agreement hereby establish a governing body for WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the"WRIA 9 Forum"the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA Forum) to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement. Each party to this agreement shall appoint one (1)elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 9 Forum. The WRIA 9 Forum is a voluntary association of the _ county and city governments located wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and associated Puget Sound drainages who choose to be parties to this Agreement. 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the provisions of Section 5, five (5) elected officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the WRIA 9 Forum. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non-voting ex officio members thereof. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 9 Forum, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 9 Forum for action, consistent with other subsections of this section.. 4.1.1 It is contemplated that services to the WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee for the year 2001 shall be provided by Service Provider, King County Department of Natural Resources. The Management Committee 3 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be executed with the Service Provider, to be approved by the WRIA 9 Forum, which shall set out the expectations for services so provided. Services should include, without limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff in increments no smaller than .5 FTE, description of any supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service Provider and the Management Committee concerning the performance of services hereunder. 4.1.2 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement, and the selection of the Management Committee, the Management Committee shall review existing work products and plans and make recommendations to the entire WRIA 9 Forum for action, including initial decisions related to work program, staffing and service agreements, and budget and financial operations, for the year 2001. All duties of the Management Committee shall be established by the WRIA 9 Forum. 4.2 The WRIA 9 Forum shall have the authority to establish and adopt the following: 4.2.1 The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall develop and propose for consideration, amendment and adoption by the WRIA 9 Forum, a scope of work for development of WRIA-based Watershed Plans, including planning priorities for each year of this Agreement, and performance review of work under this Agreement. The scope of work may provide for certain tasks or processes to be the responsibility of the WRIA Sub-Forums.The scope of work shall specifically identify the level of staff support to be provided to the WRIA Sub-Forums in furtherance of their agreed upon tasks or processes. 4.2.2. The WRIA 9 Forum shall by September 1 of each year, establish and approve an annual budget, establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis based on the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula shall be updated annually by the WRIA 9 Forum, as more current data becomes available. 4.2.3 The WRIA 9 Forum shall review and evaluate annually the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the fiscal agent and Service Providers)to this Agreement, and shall provide for whatever actions are necessary it deems appropriate to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the q WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM performance of the purposes of this Agreement. In evaluating the _ performance of any Service Provider, at least every two years, the WRIA 9 Forum shall retain an outside consultant to perform a professional assessment of the work and services so provided. 4.2.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and shall allocate the utilization of resources contributed by each party or obtained from other sources in accordance with an annual prioritized list of planning activities within the WRIA during each year of this Agreement. 4.3 The WRIA 9 Forum may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies or any other entities for any lawful purpose related hereto. The parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or general partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purposes. 4.4 The WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. 5. VOTING. The WRIA 9 Forum shall make decisions, approve scope of work, budget, priorities and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each party agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the parties, or by a majority recommendation with a minority report. Any party who does not accept a majority decision may request weighted voting as set forth below. 5.2 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum, the WRIA 9 Forum shall take action on a dual- majority basis, as follows: 5.2.1 Each party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in connection with a proposed WRIA 9 Forum action. 5.2.2 The weighted vote of each party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the other parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution by each party set in accordance with Subsection 4.2.2 in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the parties to this Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the parties to this Agreement. No action shall be valid and binding on the parties to this Agreement until it shall receive majority votes of both the total number of 5 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM parties to the Agreement and of the members representing a majority of the annual budget contribution for the year in which the vote is taken. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a"no"vote. 6. CREATION, APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF WRIA-BASED WATERSHED PLANS. WRIA-based Watershed Plans shall be developed, drafted and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, approved by the WRIA 9 Forum and subject to ratification by the legislative bodies of the parties to this Agreement, consistent with the following: 6.1 The WRIA 9 Forum shall appoint a WRIA 9 Steering Committee, comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate to the creation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans. It is intended that representatives of local general purpose governments will continue to participate on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be responsible for the development and recommendation of WRIA-based Watershed Plans consistent with the purposes of this Agreement and shall act as an advisory body to the WRIA 9 Forum. Changes in the membership or composition of the WRIA 9 Steering Committee shall be made pursuant to the voting procedures in Section 5. The WRIA 9 Forum shall establish procedures for naming and replacing representatives on the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. 6.2 The WRIA 9 Forum shall act to approve or remand any final long-term WRIA-based Watershed Plan prepared and recommended by the WRIA 9 Steering Committee within ninety (90) days of receipt of the final plan, according to the voting procedures described in Section 5. 6.3 In the event that any plan is not so approved, it shall be returned to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 9 Forum for decision. 6.4 After approval of the plan by the WRIA 9 Forum, the plan shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the plan's submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution or ordinance of the jurisdiction's legislative body, by at least five jurisdictions within WRIA 9 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the total population of WRIA 9. Upon ratification, the WRIA 9 Forum shall transmit the WRIA- based Watershed Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 6.5 In the event that either any state or federal agency to which such plans are submitted shall remand any such plan for further consideration, the plan shall be remanded to 6 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM the WRIA 9 Forum for consideration, which may include further referral to the WRIA 9 Steering Committee for recommendation on amendments thereto. 6.6 The parties agree that no WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed and funded pursuant to this Agreement shall be forwarded separately by any of them to any state or federal agency unless it has been approved and ratified as provided herein. 7. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES: BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES. 7.1 Each party shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 9 Forum under this Agreement, including all such obligations related to WRIA 9 Forum and WRIA 9 Steering Committee funding, technical support, and participation in related planning projects and activities as set forth herein. It is anticipated that separate actions by the legislative bodies of the parties will be necessary from time to time in order to carry out these obligations. 7.2 The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A, which shall be updated annually as described in Section 4.2.2. 7.3 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 9 Forum shall adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs, for the following calendar year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other(e.g. staffing) responsibilities of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized planning activities within the WRIA. The parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1st of each such year. 7.4 Funds collected from the parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as fiscal agent and as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 9 Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 9 Forum. Such rules and procedures shall set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. 6. LATECOMERS. A county or city government in King County lying wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 9 and the Green-Duwamish watershed basin and adjacent Puget Sound drainages which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written 7 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 9 Forum shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county or city seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the parties of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 9 Forum and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a party. Any county or city that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. 9. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by any party, as to that party only, upon sixty (60)days'written notice to the other parties. The terminating party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating party up to the effective date of such termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all parties. It is expected that the makeup of the parties to this Agreement may change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the parties choosing not to exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to meet its respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 9 Forum as reflected in the annual budget. 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this agreement, each party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from such party's own negligent acts or omissions related to such party's participation and obligations under this agreement. Each party agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. 11. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the parties to this Agreement intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to any party's duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species 8 WRIA 9 IIA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM Act, or any other act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 12, VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in a WRIA-based Watershed Plan developed pursuant to this Agreement. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the parties to this Agreement from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any party to this Agreement which is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the WRIA 9 Steering Committee, NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the WRIA 9 Forum or any of the parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the parties to this Agreement, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. 1& COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. This Agreement has been approved for execution by appropriate action of each party's governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: KING COUNTY By By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 9 WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM Approved as to form: CITY OF KENT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: 1$ WRIA 9 ILA 9-29 VERSION- 10/14/00-7:23 AM Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SOUTH 180TH STREET UNDERPASS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee and upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director, authorize the Mayor to sign the Kent/Tukwila Interlocal Agreement for the improvements to South 180th Street . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and interlocal agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 27, 2000 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom0 SUBJECT: S. 180th Street Underpass/City of Tukwila Agreement This is a Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)funded project. Construction needs to be underway by May of 2001 or we will loose $5 Million Dollars. This agreement will allow Tukwila to be the lead agency on this project with regard to the design, environmental review, acquiring necessary property, and constructing improvements to South 101 Street. MOTION: Recommend authorizing the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Tukwila for the Improvements to South 180m Street upon the City Attorney and the Public Works Director concurring with the language therein. MP2066 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TUKWILA AND CITY OF KENT REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH 180TH STREET THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, hereinafter sometimes called "Tukwila," and the City of Kent,hereinafter sometimes called"Kent." This Agreement is made for the purpose of performing design, acquiring necessary property,and constructing improvements to South 180th Street in order to accommodate the grade separation with the existing UPRR and BNSF. RECITALS A. Part of the Project is within the City of Tukwila, part of the Project is within the City of Kent,and part of the Project is within the City of Renton. B. The cities of Kent and Tukwila have both identified the need for road improvements on South 180th Street to improve vehicular safety at the existing railroad crossings. C. It is in the best interest of Tukwila and Kent to establish a lead agency to manage this Project and to provide for the design, environmental review, property acquisition and construction of the Project. D. Tukwila and Kent are authorized,pursuant to RCW Chapter 39.34, to enter into an interlocal government cooperative agreement of this nature. NOW,THEREFORE, Tukwila and Kent agree as follows: Job No. A00084 I O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc AGREEMENT 1. SCOPE OF WORK This Project will reconstruct the existing four-lane South 180th Street in order to grade separate the roadway from the existing UPRR and BNSF. New curb,gutter, and sidewalks are proposed within the grade separation. Structural walls will be used to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2.1 Tukwila shall be the lead agency for the Project with regard to design,environmental review,obtaining right-of-way and other property, if needed, construction and all other matters pertinent to accomplishment of the Project. 2.2 Tukwila shall be responsible for the advertisement for and selection of engineering and other design consultants as necessary for the completion of the engineering design. 2.3 Tukwila shall be responsible for coordinating the public information and involvement. Kent shall be given the opportunity to attend and participate in any public meetings. 2.4 Tukwila shall apply to Kent for the necessary permits,as required, for the construction of that portion of the Project within Kent's jurisdiction. 2.5 The parties to this Agreement shall appoint a contact person or persons to act as liaison for the Project. These contact persons will meet on an "as needed" basis to provide guidance for the Project and serve as a coordination body between the two agencies. 2.6 Tukwila will provide 70 and 90 percent plans and specifications to Kent for review. Kent will provide written comments, if any,to Tukwila within 10 days after Kent receives the plans and specifications. Job No. A00084 2 O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc 2.7 Tukwila shall be responsible for the acquisition of all property necessary for the Project. Kent agrees to cooperate in Tukwila's efforts to acquire property that lies within Kent. Kent authorizes Tukwila to exercise eminent domain with Kent,as needed. Title to any property acquired within Kent shall be vested in the City of Kent. 2.8 Kent hereby grants Tukwila right-of-entry into the incorporated limits of Kent for the purpose of performing any and all tasks necessary to complete the Project. 2.9 The final acceptance of the Project design shall be by Tukwila after review by Kent. 3. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BIDDING 3.] Tukwila shall prepare the contract bid documents for the Project. 3.2 Tukwila shall advertise the contract in the official legal publication for the City of Tukwila and, if necessary, other newspapers to provide the widest possible coverage commensurate with the size of the Project. 3.3 Tukwila will provide to Kent a copy of the plans and specifications advertised for bid. 3.4 Tukwila will open the bids. Tukwila will notify Kent of the time and date of the opening of the bids, which is typically three weeks after the Project is advertised. Kent may, but need not, attend the opening of the bids. 3.5 Tukwila will tabulate the bids. Tukwila shall provide a dated, verified copy of the bid tabulations to Kent. The bid tabulations will identify the estimated construction, inspection,and overhead cost, based upon the lowest responsible bid. 3.6 Tukwila shall award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the total Project, subject to applicable laws and regulations. Job No. A00084 3 O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc 4. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Tukwila shall provide the necessary engineering, administrative, inspection, clerical and other services necessary for the execution of the Project. In providing such services within Kent,the City of Tukwila Engineer may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties vested by law or ordinance in the City of Kent Engineer or other Kent officer or department charged with street administration. 4.2 Kent may furnish an inspector(at Kent's expense)to insure proper compliance with requirements during the construction of the portion of the Project located within Kent. Kent's inspector shall advise Tukwila of any deficiencies noted. Kent's inspector shall not communicate directly with or instruct the contractor directly on any matters regarding contract performance. Kent shall notify Tukwila, in writing, of any changes it wishes to make in the plans and specifications,which affect Kent's portion, which changes shall be made, if feasible. The Tukwila City Engineer will have the authority to determine whether any changes requested by Kent will be implemented. Kent will be financially responsible for those requested construction changes if it significantly changes the scope of work. Kent's financial responsibility will be in addition to Kent's lump-sum payment to Tukwila described below. 4.3 Tukwila will at all times keep Kent advised as to the progress of the Project, and shall not order or approve any changes in the approved Project design that substantially change the nature of the Project within the limits of the City of Kent without first consulting Kent. Tukwila's City Engineer will have the authority to determine whether any changes will be implemented. 4A Prior to Project completion, both parties shall perform a mutual final inspection of the Project. Kent may provide a written deficiency list to Tukwila within five working days after the final inspection. The contractor will complete only construction deficiencies that comply with the contract specifications. Final Project acceptance will be by Tukwila's City Engineer. Job No. A00084 4 O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc 5. PAYMENT 5.1 The City of Kent will pay Tukwila for any City of Kent-requested construction changes for which the City of Kent is financially responsible no later than 30 days after Kent receives a bill from Tukwila. 5.2 In the event a lawsuit is instituted to enforce the payment obligations of the City of Kent,the prevailing parry shall be entitled to recover all costs of such a lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. 6. DURATION/TERMINATION 6.1 This Agreement shall remain in effect until final acceptance of the Project and payment by Kent of all monies due from Kent to Tukwila, subject to the early termination provisions below. 6.2 If expected or actual funding is withdrawn, reduced or limited in any way prior to the completion of the Project, either parry may, with 30 days written notice to the other parry,terminate this Agreement. 6.3 In the event of termination prior to completion of the Project: 6.3.1 The party requesting termination shall pay all direct and indirect phasing-out costs. 6.3.2 Termination costs payable shall not exceed the actual costs incurred as a result of termination of the Project. Job No. A00084 5 O:/1nterlocaI Agreement.doc 7. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS Washington State law shall govern the respective liability between the parties to this Agreement for any loss due to property damage or personal injury arising out of the activities conducted pursuant to this Agreement. 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 8.1 In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding this Agreement,the parties shall attempt to resolve the matter informally. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter informally within 30 days, the matter shall be decided by the City of Tukwila Director of Public Works. 8.2 The parties may also agree to an alternative dispute resolution process. 9. OTHER PROVISIONS 9.1 Tukwila shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes and the employees of Tukwila, or any of its contractors, subcontractors, and their employees shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees of Kent. 9.2 Nothing contained herein is intended to, nor shall be construed to,create any rights in any parry not a signatory to this Agreement, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of Kent,Tukwila, or their officials, employees,agents, or representatives, to any parry not a signatory to this Agreement. 9.3 Waiver of any breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement. 9.4 Each party shall retain ownership and usual maintenance responsibility for the road,drainage system, signs, sidewalk,and other property within its jurisdiction. 9.5 If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid,the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to serve the purposes and objectives of the parties. Job No. A00084 6 O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc 9.6 The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions of this Agreement. 9.7 This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or written,not incorporated herein are excluded. 9.8 This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing,duly executed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have entered into this Agreement effective as of the date last written below. CITY OF TUKWILA CITY OF KENT Title: Title: Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tukwila City Attorney Kent City Attorney Job No. A00084 7 O:/InterlocalAgreement.doc r� i _ Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to finalize and sign a multi-year agreement for communications services with Focal Communications Corporation, subject to the approval of the Director of Information Technology and the City Attorney or their designee, as recommended by the Operations Committee on November 21, 2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Manager of Technical Services 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G -- y; • KENT W A 5 H I N G T O N November 12, 2000 INFORMATION To: Council Operations Committee TECHNOLOGY Marty Mulholland CC: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information Technology Director Brent McFall, Chief Administrative Officer Phone:263-856-4600 Fax:263-866-4700 From: Joseph Lorenz, Manager of Technical Services 22p Fourth Ave.S. Re: Requesting approval of Telecommunications RFP Kent WA 98032-5895 For several years the City's telecommunications costs for dial-tone services have been reduced due to a special agreement with U.S. West (now QWest Communications.) This special agreement expired recently and therefore the City had the option of accepting QWest dial-tone rates or seeking alternate dial-tone providers. We chose to explore our options by issuing an RFP. The Technical Services division of the Information Technology department recruited the services of TMC Group to develop and issue an RFP for Telecommunication Services on behalf of the City. The RFP outlined all telecommunication services currently being used by the City. The respondents were asked to provide pricing and alternate route options for all services they proposed in their response. The City received one response to the RFP. The response came from Focal Communications Corporation, a Chicago, Illinois based corporation. Focal's response covered the City's primary dial-tone needs and addressed the City's long-term disaster readiness plan by including alternative dial-tone routes from the telephone company's central office to City Hall and Fire and Life Safety Station 74. The proposal from Focal is projected to save the City approximately $12,000 annually. (The comparison was related to similar services available from QWest Communications.) Additionally the proposal includes a critical component of the City's long term disaster planning strategy, alternative path routing for dial-tone services from the central office to strategic City facilities. It is the recommendation of JR Simmons from the TMC Group and myself to authorize the Major to sign a multi-year agreement for communication services with Focal Communications Corporation, subject to the approval of the Director of Information Technology and City Attorney or their designee. Enclosures: Recommendation Report from TMC Group Focal Communications Corporation response for Telecommunication Services RECOMMENDATION REPORT CITY OF KENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK SERVICES November 7, 2000 Recommendation Summary Based on an excellent fit to the City of Kent's preferred design and the most cost effective option, TMC Group recommends acceptance of the Focal Communications proposal. The new services will replace the City's local dial tone and long distance lines with high quality digital circuits, with an increase in capacity of 25%, at an annual cost savings of approximately$12,000 over equivalent Qwest services. Background The City of Kent issued an RFP to the competitive local exchange carrier(CLEC) community on August 4, 2000. It described the City's current dial tone services, private line services, and long distance usage. The RFP defined various vendor requirements and it clearly outlined the City's goal of obtaining diversified routing for the main link from the telephone company. With the expiration of Qwest contracts (formerly US West) earlier this year, the City also wanted to explore the opportunity to reduce costs. The diverse routing request was a key element in this project. Although the City expected the competitive process would obtain the most favorable pricing, the most important goal was to reduce the "point of failure"risks inherent in the current design. Many carriers, including Qwest, could lower the City's telephone line costs through long- term contract rates. However, the current design sends all direct dialed calls and almost all outbound calls through the Qwest central office (CO) located in downtown Kent. The link from that CO to City Hall is a single pathway cable. Thus, the current design has non-protected failure points as follows: A central office equipment failure A break or failure of the physical cable from the CO to City Hall A failure of the City's termination equipment A failure of the PBX system at City Hall A facility problem (fire, flood,bomb, etc.) impacting City Hall A"disaster" affecting downtown Kent (both City Hall and the CO) The first option to obtain some protection against failures includes routing some of the calls directly to the PBX at Fire Administration/Station 74. This would maintain some service during a few of the problems shown, but as long as incoming and outgoing calls pass through the same Qwest central office, many service affecting scenarios are possible. The City hoped, through the RFP process, to locate a CLEC that could provide both the route diversity and a cost effective service. General CLEC Analysis Two factors are working against the City's plan. First, the City of Kent is not part of the average CLEC "footprint." Most local carriers want to reach their customers via fiber optic cables directly linking the CLEC CO to the client's PBX. However, to maximize the return on their investment, the carriers are first placing their fiber in the densely populated business districts such as Seattle and Bellevue. Carriers do not view Kent as a target market area. Second, the City does not have enough competitive services to generate significant revenue opportunities for the CLECs. The City has access to their own fiber cable, obtained through negotiations with the cable TV franchisee, and links most City locations together for voice and data services. This means there are few carver based private lines available for contract—typically a highly profitable line of business. Thus, the City does not have the financial "pull"to encourage carriers to create special networking arrangements. In fact, the City is a small client compared to the average CLEC customer. Although many CLEC representatives expressed interest in the opportunity to serve Kent, their questions and responses to the RFP were consistent with the above analysis. Focal Communications Analysis Focal Communications has a different philosophy than most of their competitors. Rather than invest in an expensive fiber optic plant, they use the other telephone companies' lines to link to their client sites. By installing diverse fiber optic links from their central office to various switch points at each CLEC and Qwest, they have access to several "last mile"connection options for many customers. With Qwest, Focal links to both the tandem switch(as do most CLECs) and every Qwest CO in their target market area. Unlike other CLECs, Focal has defined the greater Kent area as part of their market. Assisting the City's design goal is the City's own fiber. Focal Communications will terminate part of the City's lines in the City Hall switch, routed via the downtown Qwest CO. The rest of the City's services will be terminated in Fire Station 75, routed via Qwest's Covington CO. The City will then use its own fiber to link this portion of the service to the Fire Administration/Station 74 PBX. Thus, from the highly redundant, fully protected Focal CO (in Seattle), two separate routes will be established to each Qwest central office. With this complete route diversity installed, the City of Kent can plan emergency telephone services for almost every imaginable disaster scenario. A thorough investigation into Focal's history and reputation highlighted their emphasis on customer service. They have one of the higher employee to customer ratios and it shows in their excellent references. They can afford to invest in top quality back end systems (billing and diagnostics) and proper staffing levels because they are not trying to fund the construction and electronics costs of their own fiber plant. Focal's current customers recounted many instances of superior and proactive customer service. TMC Group Page 2 F 0 C A L C 0 M M U N I C A T I 0 N 5 C 0 R P 0 R A T I 0 N FOC)AIL I. Introduction/Overview II. Vendor Requirements/Information III Technical Requirements/Documentation IV Services Configuration/Pricing V Contracts/Agreements VI Service/Product Information A. Coverage Area Maps B. Network Diagram C.Billing Sample/Invoice Sample D. Service Brochures FOC/\ C 1999 Focal Communications Corporation City of Kent Teleconununicotions Services RFP ` 1.8 RFP Response Form - Title Page The undersigned agrees to furnish the enclosed services at the price stated, subject to the conditions and requirements of this proposal. The proposal must be signed by a person with authority to legally bind the Vendor. Vendor Identification and Authorized Signature: Firm Name: FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON Address: 1511 —6T'Ave,Suite 200,Seattle, WA, 98101 Signed By: Printed Name: Susan DeFlorio Title: General Manager Date: September 18, 2000 Please indicate the person to be contacted by the City of Kent or TMC concerning any part of this RFP or the proposal: Name: William `Bill'Boekenoogen Title: Account Manager Telephone: (206) 219-7643 Fax Number: (206) 219-7699 E-Mail: williarnb@focal.com Page 7 Overview Focal Communications is a facilities-based nationally integrated communications provider. We provide voice, data, and collocation services to some of the largest communications intensive users in the country. Focal can bring value to the City of Kent by providing: • Flexibility and Simplicity- Focal does not require customers to enter into volume commitments. Further flexibility allows the City of Kent to place inbound/outbound traffic over the same digital facility, which means more efficient use of telecommunication services. Realizing the ever-changing world of telecommunications, Focal also offers you the flexibility of one or two year term commitments. • Outstanding Support- Focal will structure your account team to optimize your business. Each Focal customer is provided with a local account team for each city that they have Focal services. In addition, Focal provides 24 hour a day, 7 days a week problem resolution for our customers. Each customer is provided with a toll-free number to our National Corporate Customer Care Department in Chicago at the time of service installation along with detailed information about their circuit identification (provided in the Customer Care Manual issued at the time of service installation). • • Vendor Coordination- Focal will fully cooperate/coordinate with the City of Kent's vendors and provide project management if necessary. In regards to Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Focal utilizes several layers of communication with the LEC as well as with other CLECs. Contacts, procedures, and escalation list are established with different levels of provisioning, installation and maintenance teams at all the LECS and CLECs we interface with. • Diversity- Focal's service is transport neutral, meaning that we do not solely rely on one fiber network to provide service like most carriers. In Seattle, Focal has five fiber carriers directly connected to our facility using diverse SONET rings and entrances. In addition to having multiple backbone providers, Focal is connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network via multiple tandems and most Central Offices, With this design Focal is able to eliminate the common choke hold points that most carriers experience by being solely connected to the Tandem Office. • Unique Products- Focal offers a unique product mix that will further augment the City of Kent's telecommunication services. One product of note would be our Toll-Free Rewards TM offer. With Toll-Free Rewards the City of Kent would receive a credit of .005 cents per minute for every outbound 800 call made over a Focal TI or PRI. For example if the City of Kent had 100,000 monthly minutes of outbound 800 traffic your credit would be $500.00 per • month (100,000 x .005= $500.00). You would then have the ability to apply accrued credits towards additional or existing Focal services. r Focal's Competitive Advantage Focal's Network: Focal's service is "transport neutral", unlike most carriers, who provide service solely on their own fiber networks. Focal provides service to its customers using its own switching platform and multiple transport providers in one seamless network. As the third generation CLEC, Focal is combining diversity, reliability, and sophistication for a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone companies. Diversity: Is a measure of disaster prevention. Focal distributes trunking multiple network connection points such as for SS7, 911, 411, and customer lines over multiple fiber infrastructures comprised of dual fiber, bi-directional, SONET rings. By distributing telephone traffic over multiple fiber infrastructures, the effects of a facility's failure are minimized. Reliability: Focal employs the state-of-the-art Nortel DMS 500TM telephone switching system, custom engineered for usage-intensive customers. Our switching system design benefits include: • Trunkinp,Ratio-Focal's subscriber line to network trunk ratio is targeted to be one to one to minimize call blockage. Due to the advent of the Internet and therefore great demand for dial lines for data calls,the old statistical model of six or eight subscriber lines to one network trunk has become outdated. • Port Availability-Projected availability of ports per site is targeted to be a four to six month advance supply. Ports are for T-1 and PRI to carry voice and dial up data. Service: Our customers are so satisfied with our services that we have nearly 100% customer retention since we started in 1996. As of the date of this proposal, we have never lost a customer due to any customer service related issue. Focal Growth: Focal is currently in the process of implementing a nationwide ATM network. Currently Focal's ATM SONET based network is operational in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Dallas, Detroit, and Philadelphia(Seattle I" quarter 2001). Summary: In every aspect of network design, we have multiple safeguards in place to ensure disaster prevention. Our disaster prevention strategy includes: • Alternate Routing Architecture-Focal switches are trunked to both the access tandem switches at the core of the ILEC networks as well as the central office switches at the edges of the ILEC network. This design optimizes two-way trunking to and from overflow routes. This strategy minimizes the impact of trunking and other switching failures in the Public Switched Telephone Network. • Battery Backup for SONET terminals, DMS 500TM switches,and DS-3 multiplexers. • UPS-Backup for all AC powered equipment including customer collocated devices. • On site generator backup-To support all telecommunications equipment, battery plant,UPS,and ancillary equipment in the event of a commercial power failure. City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURES 2 1.1 Purpose and Scope..............................................................................................................2 1.2 Schedule of Events..............................................................................................................2 1_3 Communications Regarding RFP........................................................................................2 1.4 General RFP Procedures.....................................................................................................3 1.5 Codes and Standards...........................................................................................................5 1.6 Proposal Format..................................................................................................................5 1.7 Evaluation Criteria..............................................................................................................6 1_8 RFP Response Form-Title Page........................................................................................7 SECTION 2 - VENDOR REQUIREMENTS/INFORMATION 8 2.1 Vendor Background Information........................................................................................8 2_2 Subcontractor Information(if applicable)...........................................................................8 2_3 General Implementation Reauirements...............................................................................8 2.4 Service and Maintenance.....................................................................I..............................9 2.5 Customer References......................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 3 -TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/DOCUMENTATION 12 3.1 Background/Current Services ........................................................................................... 12 3_2 General Requirements and Questions............................................................................... 16 3.3 Service.Reliability,and Performance............................................................................... 18 3.4 Access Requirements........................................................................................................21 3_5 Voice Services ..................................................................................................................23 3_6 Data Services ....................................................................................................................27 3.7 Customer Service..............................................................................................................27 SECTION 4-CONFIGURATION/PRICING 30 SECTION 5-CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS 36 5.1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS..........................................................................................36 5.2 DEFECTIVE OR UNAUTHORIZED WORK.................................................................36 5.3 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR...................................................................................36 5.4 TERMINATION...............................................................................................................36 5.5 CHANGES........................................................................................................................37 5.6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.............................................................................................38 5.7 CLAIMS ...........................................................................................................................38 5.8 DAMAGES AND LIMITATION ON LIABILITY..........................................................39 5.9 INDEMNIFICATION.......................................................................................................39 5.10 ROYALTIES AND PATENTS........................................................................................39 5.11 INSURANCE....................................................................................................................39 5.12 CITY OF KENT BUSINESS LICENSE..........................................................................41 5.13 ANTI-KICKBACK...........................................................................................................41 5.14 NONDISCRIMINATION.................................................................................................41 5.15 EQUAL EMPLOYEMENT..............................................................................................41 5.16 MISCELLANEOUS. ........................................................................................................42 5.18 TERMINATION...............................................................................................................43 5.19 DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................44 Page 1 City of Kent Telerommunications Services RFP SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURES 1.1 Purpose and Scope This Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared by the City of Kent and TMC Group,L.L.C. (TMC), the consulting firm retained by the City of Kent, for the procurement of new telecommunications services. This RFP is issued as a competitive negotiation under RCW 39.04.270. The RFP covets local dial tone services, long distance, point-to-point circuits, and other voice and data communications requirements. The City of Kent seeks a quality vendor(s) to provide part or all of these services. This RFP sets forth: 1. The process whereby interested parties may respond. 2. Instructions regarding the required form and content of the Vendors' proposals. 3. The functional and performance criteria for services. Upon completion of the RFP process, the City of Kent may contract with selected vendor(s)to provide all or part of these services. The selected vendor(s) will be responsible for all design work, procurement of services, installation, and cutover details including all planning, as-built documentation, maintenance, and training. 1.2 Schedule of Events The estimated schedule of events through initial implementation is outlined below. RFP Issued August 4, 2000 Pre-Proposal Conference August 21, 2000 Deadline for Questions September 4, 2000 Proposals Due at 4.00 p.m. September 18, 2000 Declaration of Apparent Successful Vendor(s) October 2, 2000 *If required. 1.3 Communications Regarding RFP 1.3.1 Proposal Response Deadline and Delivery. Vendors shall provide one signed original, five printed versions, and an electronic copy(in MS-Word or Rich Text Format) via a 3'/2-inch floppy. The proposal must be completely sealed and must include both the printed versions and an electronic copy. Proposals must be delivered to The City Clerks Office, 220 4's Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032, by 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time,September 18,2000 Vendors are solely responsible for ensuring that proposals are delivered on time. Delays caused by any delivery service, including the U.S. Postal Service, will not be grounds for an extension of the deadline. Proposals received after the above deadline will not be considered and will be returned. 1.3.2 Contacts. Upon release of this RFP, all vendor communications concerning this acquisition shall be directed to: Page 2 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Name: JR Simmons Title: Chief Operating Officer Mailing: 3100 South 176`h Street Suite 203 Address: SeaTac,WA 98188 Phone: (206)988-5400 Fax: (206) 988-5415 Email: irs@tmcjzroup.com Vendors who seek information,clarification or interpretations from anyone other than the above- mentioned contacts are advised that such material is used at the Vendor's own risk and the City of Kent shall not be bound by any such representations. 1.3.3 Vendor Clarifications and Ouestions. Specific questions concerning the RFP must be submitted in writing (may be faxed or sent via e-mail) to TMC in advance of the RFP due date. The deadline for questions is September 4, 2000. Copies of relevant questions will be distributed to all participating vendors. 1.3.4 RFP Changes or Amendments. Any revisions to the RFP will be issued in the form of an addendum by the City of Kent and will be distributed to all vendors prior to the response due date. • 1.3.5 Clarifications. The City of Kent reserves the right to obtain clarification of any point in a vendor's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a proposal. Failure of a vendor to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the Vendor's proposal. The City's retention of this right shall in no way reduce the responsibility of the vendors to submit complete, accurate and clear proposals. 1.3.6 Vendor Contact. The proposal must include the name of the specific individual who will act as the primary contact for the vendor during proposal evaluation. The proposal must identify the contact's position in the organization, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address if available. 1.3.7 Pre-Proposal Conference. The City will hold a pre-proposal conference to address questions of all interested parties. The conference is not mandatory and will be held at 10:00 a.m., August 21, 2000, at the Kent City Hall, 220 Fourth Avenue South. 1.4 General RFP Procedures 1.4.1 Right of Selection/Rejection of Proposals. The City of Kent will amend this agreement to the qualified bidder whose proposal is most advantageous to the City with price and other factors considered. The City of Kent reserves the right to select a proposal for telecommunications services through competitive negotiations. The City of Kent reserves the right to select or reject any or all proposals for any reason, to waive any informality in the proposals received, and to waive minor . deviations from the specifications. Page 3 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP 1.4.2 Different Services. Vendors may choose to provide a proposal on any or all services identified in this RFP: local dial tone, long distance, private lines, and/or data services. However, the City of Kent prefers to contract with as few vendors as necessary. 1.4.3 Incorporation of RFP and Proposal in the Final Agreement. This RFP and the Vendor's response, including all promises, warranties, commitments and representations made in the successful proposal, shall be binding and incorporated by reference into the City of Kent's contract with the Vendor(see also Section 5.1). 1.4.4 Mandatory Contract Provisions. Section 5 of this RFP establishes minimum mandatory contract provisions that must be incorporated in any agreement entered into between the City and the Vendor, if awarded the bid on this RFP. These mandatory provisions may only be amended at the sole discretion of the City. Additionally, these provisions may be amended if determined to be in conflict with the applicable tariffs on file with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission or other applicable codes, rules, or regulations on the date of contract execution. 1.4.5 Errors in Proposals. Vendors are responsible for all errors or omissions in their proposals, and any such errors or omissions will not serve to diminish their obligations to the City of Kent. 1.4.6 Cost of Development of Proposals. All expenses incurred by the vendors related to the proposal or the selection process will be borne by the Vendor. No claim for reimbursement of time, material, or travel expenses shall be made by the Vendor against the City of Kent, regardless of the results of the selection process. 1.4.7 Vendor Prime Contractor Responsibility. If a vendor's proposal includes equipment, software, or services to be supplied by entities other than itself, it is mandatory for the proposing vendor to act as prime contractor for the procurement of all products and services proposed to meet this RFP. The Vendor acting as the prime contractor must be the sole point of contact with regard to contract stipulations, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the purchase of the proposed equipment, hardware, software, and/or services. The Vendor acting as the prime contractor must take full responsibility for the demonstration, delivery, installation, and acceptance testing of the items proposed to be supplied by its subcontractor. 1.4.8 Independent Contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by their relationship. The City is interested only in the results to be achieved, and conduct and control of the work will lie solely with the Vendor. The Vendor is not to be considered an agent or employee of the City for any purpose, and the employees of the Vendor are not entitled to any of the benefits that the City provides for its employees. The Vendor understands that the City does not intend to use the Vendor's services exclusively. 1.4.9 Period of Validity of Proposals. The Vendor must certify that its proposal will remain in effect for 120 days after the proposal due date. The City of Kent may request an extension beyond the 120 days. Page 4 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • 1.4.10 Proprietary Material. The City of Kent will attempt to protect legitimate trade secrets of any vendor. Examples of such information would be unpublished descriptions of proprietary aspects of the services proposed. Any proprietary information contained in the proposal must be designated clearly and should be separately bound and labeled with the words "Proprietary Information." Marking the entire proposal proprietary may result in the rejection of the proposal. Vendors should be aware that the City of Kent is required by law to make its records available for public inspection, with certain exceptions. It is the City of Kent's belief that this legal obligation would not require the disclosure of proprietary, descriptive literature that contains privileged designs, drawings, or documentation. However, the Vendor, by submission of materials marked "Proprietary Information," acknowledges and agrees that the City of Kent will have no obligation or liability to the Vendor in the event that it must disclose these materials. 1.4.11 Proposal Disposition. All materials submitted in response to this RFP shall become the property of the City of Kent. 1.5 Codes and Standards It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to identify all regulatory codes and/or agencies having jurisdiction and governing or affecting the execution of this proposal, and to insure conformance with those codes and agencies. At a minimum, and without limitation, the execution of this RFP, and all acts of the Vendor selected to perform work described herein, shall conform with and/or follow the guidelines of the following: • Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ^� State of Washington Public Utilities Commission OSHA Federal, State, City of Kent and King County laws and regulations Applicable Regulations of the Washington Department of Labor and Industries State and Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws This list is not exclusive. 1.6 Proposal Format It is essential that the City of Kent be able to easily match a vendor's response with this RFP's requirements for information. This RFP and its format should be incorporated into the actual response, using an electronic form of this RFP to organize the proposal. Where asked, indicate compliance and/or note any exceptions to the requirements and provide responses to any questions that follow. The original and two printed versions of the proposals must be submitted on 8r/2 by 11- inch paper in standard three-ring binders. Please include a 3r/z-inch computer disk copy(in MS Word or Rich Text Format) of your proposal along with the printed copies. Foldouts for charts, tables, spreadsheets, and single-line diagrams are acceptable. Pre-printed materials, such as brochures or technical documents, may be included, but whenever possible should be placed within the three-ring binders. Page 5 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Section 1. Introduction and Overview. This includes the Title Page and a Proposal Overview, not to exceed three pages, identifying the primary reasons why the proposal will best meet the needs of the City of Kent. Section 2. Vendor Requirements/Information. Section 3. Technical Requirements/Documentation. Section 4. Services Configuration /Pricine. Section 5. Contracts/ Agreements. Submit a copy of any proposed agreements or contracts in this section. Section 6. Service/Product Information. Use this section for brochures and pre-printed materials that describe the individual service(s). 1.7 Evaluation Criteria The City of Kent will initially evaluate the proposals for requirements compliance and technical merit. Proposals deemed acceptable will be reviewed to establish life cycle costs. The City of Kent may ask some vendors to present and/or demonstrate the service(s) included in their proposal. A contract shall be awarded to the most responsible and responsive vendor based upon, but not limited to, the following criteria: 1. The costs for service(s) and products considered or proposed. 2. The quality of the service(s) and products proposed and their conformity with technical specifications. 3. The ability, capability and skill of the Vendor to provide the products and services required. 4. Ongoing servicing and maintenance resources, capability and capacity. 5. The character, integrity, reputation,judgment, experience and efficiency of the Vendor. 6. The quality of performance on similar contracts and services. 7. Such other information as may be obtained and have an impact on the decision to award the contract. Page 6 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP SECTION 2 - VENDOR REQUIREMENTSANFORMATION 2.1 Vendor Background Information Please provide the following information: a. Parent Company(if applicable): FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION b. Name and title of top local executive: Susan DeFlorio, General Manager C. Organizational Type/Structure: For Profit Corporation/Facilities based CLEC d. Local business license number: 601 918 206 e. Vendor Experience: 1. Years company in business in the Puget Sound area: 2 2. Years firm has represented the proposed service(s): 4 • 3. Other services/products represented: See product brochures,Section 6 4. Additional background information: See Attachment 1, Section 6 2.2 Subcontractor Information (if applicable) Provide a list of subcontractors who will have responsibility for work related to successful accomplishment of this project. Include a brief background on each subcontractor involved, description of the subcontractor's activities, and three references of work similar to that which they will be performing as subcontractor on this project. Focal Response: For purposes of using one of the fiber carriers used by Focal to provision these circuits, we may use AT&T, WorldCom,Electric Light Wave,Inc. (ELI),US West/Quest and/or Level 3 for access. 2.3 General Implementation Requirements With submission of a proposal,the Vendor understands and agrees to the following. 2.3.1 It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to design, furnish, install, and test all services, including hardware and software, as outlined in this RFP. • 2.3.2 The Vendor shall provide all supervision, labor, materials, equipment, and testing ^j instrumentation required for the work associated with this RFP. All overtime costs for any phase of Page 8 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP the work will be included. Cutover work will need to be carefully scheduled and performed with minimal disruption to the City's operation. Minimal disruption is defined as no more than 2 hours without inbound or outbound call handling for one or more departments. Some departments operate on a 24-hour schedule. For proposal purposes, the client anticipates that the most efficient cutover start will be at 6:00 p.m. The service(s) must be fully operational by 6:00 a.m. on the following business day. 2.3.3 The Vendor shall secure all permits, inspections, and authorizations required to complete the work associated with this RFP at no additional cost to the City of Kent. The Vendor understands and agrees to the requirements of Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.3: Agrees/Comply without exception _X_Agrees/Comply with clarification, as explained below: Take exception, as noted below: Focal Response: RE: 2.3.1 —Focal does not typically design,furnish,or install softwarethardware. The hardware/software required for service is usually already in place, or being installed, i.e. into a new facility,by the company's chosen equipment vendor. 2.3.4 List below the site requirements and environmental requirements for any equipment proposed. Please include all information needed including electrical, climate control, floor space, and backboard space (switch field terminations). Focal Response: N/A 2.4 Service and Maintenance 2.4.1 The Vendor shall perform its services in a timely and professional manner by qualified maintenance technicians familiar with the services, products, and equipment and their operation. 2.4.2 Throughout the implementation and during the term of all service agreements, including all renewal periods, the Vendor will correct all defects to the extent those defects originate from the acts or omissions of Vendor's products or personnel, at no cost to the City of Kent. 2.4.3 The Vendor represents and warrants that it shall maintain the services, and all related equipment in working order twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, and shall provide emergency telephone numbers where emergency service can be obtained. The Vendor understands and agrees to the requirements of Section 2.4.1 through 2.4.3: Agrees/Comply without exception �^ _X_ Agrees/Comply with clarification, as explained below: Page 9 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Take exception, as noted below: Focal Response: RE: 2.4.3—Focal's responsibility for maintenance of service extends up to the point of demarcation for the PSTN circuit. 2.4.4 The Vendor must be capable of responding to a major alarm condition within one hour, including the dispatch of a technician to the site, when necessary. Please provide documentation supporting your response times. Focal Response: The design of our switch provides us with the capability to proactively monitor circuits installed in our switch. When a circuit fails to respond or is brought down for any reason, intentional or otherwise,audible and visual alarms are triggered and the response is immediate. In addition,Focal provides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week network monitoring and problem resolution for our Customers. Many issues can be resolved remotely. Each Customer is provided a toll free number to our National Corporate Customer Care Department in Chicago at the time of service installation,along with detailed information about their circuit identification (provided in the Customer Care Manual issued at the time of service installation). The Customer Care Representative will obtain specific information about the problem being experienced for entry into a trouble ticket. If necessary,a release of the circuit for testing may be required. A local Switch • Technician (on-call if after normal business hours) will be contacted immediately following customer notification and will work the problem. Both the Switch Technician and Customer Care Representative will provide status to the Customer during the repair period. The status will be provided on an hourly basis, should the problem persist beyond one hour. Upon restoration of service,the Customer Care Representative or Switch Technician will contact the customer for authorization to close the trouble ticket. 2.4.5 Please provide the typical intervals for processing orders. 1. Initial order with Vendor: < 72 hours 2. Telco interval (when applicable): approximately 28 business days 3. Post Telco interval for the Vendor to complete installation: approximately 10 days 4. Total interval time: approximately 30-40 business days, including LNP process. Page 10 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • 2.5 Customer References The City of Kent is specifically interested in the Vendor's experience and responsibility in designing and implementing services that are comparable to the project outlined in this RFP. The Vendor must submit a minimum of five (maximum of ten) relevant references of customers to whom the Vendor provided a similar service(s) within the last three years that is presently in use. The following information is required for each reference: mp City of North Chicago Maurice Brown 2- PRI/ISDN Circuits 1/00 847-578-7449 Elgin Community Bill Johnson 2—PRI circuits 6/99 College 847-697-1000 Dept.of Energy Mike Vonderheide 2—PRI circuits 1/99 Argonne National 630-252-2764 Laboratory Federal Reserve Bank Greg Masterson Multiple Exchange 11/99 312-322-5862 80 Analog Lines Thornton School John Dolak 3—PRI's 5/99 District 708-2254049 Page 11 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • SECTION 3 - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS /DOCUMENTATION 3.1 Background/Current Services 3.1.1 Voice Networking Services All City of Kent office locations and installation addresses are listed in Appendix A. There are two main telephone switch locations at the City of Kent: • Kent City Hall,Nortel Meridian Option 81c • Fire Station 74/Fire Administration, Nortel Meridian Option 61 The telephone systems at these sites have direct (point-to point)T-1 interfaces, utilizing City owned fiber optic cable, for networking to other City of Kent sites served by Nortel Mini-Carrier Remotes (a remote shelf technology). The City locations with Mini-Carrier Remotes are: • City Shops (PW Ops) • Corrections Facility (CKCF) • Fire Station#71 • Fire Station#72 • Fire Station#73 1 • • Fire Station #75 Fire Station#76 • Fire Station #77 • Resource Center • Riverbend Golf Course • Senior Center There is a direct fiber optic cable network between many locations in the City of Kent. The fiber optic cable supplies telco-based facilities for a number of voice T-1 circuits and a variety of data circuits. Four-digit dialing is provided to City locations via inter-PBX networking and OPX circuits to non-PBX sites. 3.1.2 Dial Tone/Digital Switched Service (DSS) As of May 2000, local telephone company (US West) dial tone is provided primarily as follows: Location Name Circuit TYPv Additional Services F City Hall 1FB 14 City Hall Analog PBX 6 Trunk (2-Wa ) Citv Hall ISDN BRI 1 City Hall JLMM I 1 ISCAN �) Page 12 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Locatfou Name Circuit Type Qty Additional Services City Hall Market 3 Expansion Line City Hall T-1 (Other) 2 Centrex Plus City Hall T-1 (PtP) 15 3.5 Tank 1FB 1 Armstrong Springs 1FB 3 Armstrong Springs Distinctive Ring 1 Number Blue Boy 1FB 1 Centennial Building 1FB 1 Centennial Building LMB 2 Centennial Building LMB 1 City Shops (PW O s) 1FB 4 Clark Springs LM 3 2 Commons 1FB 2 Corrections Facility (CKCF) LMB 1 Del Webb 1FB 1 East Hill Well 1FB 1 East Hill Well Distinctive Ring 1 Number `^ Fire Station#71 1FB 1 SCAN Fire Station#72 1FB 1 SCAN Fire Station#73 1FB 1 SCAN Fire Station#74 (Fire 1FB 4 SCAN (1) Administration Fire Station #75 1FB 1 ISCAN Fire Station #76 1FB 2 Fire Station#77 1FB 2 Fred Meyers Police Precinct 1FB 3 Garrison Creek 1FB 1 Golf Maintenance Shop 1FB 1 Guiberson Tank 1FB 2 Horse Shoe Acres Sewer 1FB 1 Horse Shoe Acres Storm 1FB 1 Kent Historical Society (Keck 1FB 2 House Kent Memorial Park 1FB 1 Toll Restriction Kent Springs Pump Station 1FB 2 Kent Springs Pump Station Distinctive Ring 1 Number Lake Meridian 1FB 1 Call Forwarding, Voice Mail, MWI,Toll Restriction Page 13 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Location Name Circuit Type Qty Additional Services. Linda Heights Pump Station LMB 1 Matt Knox Green House IFB 3 Call Forward Busy Line/Don't Answer, Voice Mail, MWI Meadow Hills IFB 1 Mill Creek Park IFB 1 Municipal Court IFB I Call FWD to 856-5200 (USW expense due to Listing error Nursery Annex IFB 2 Toll Restriction Police Department Building IFB 4 SCAN (1) Pump Station 3 IFB I Pump Station 3 Distinctive Ring 1 Number Pump Station 4 IFB 1 Pump Station 4 Distinctive Ring 1 Number Pump Station 5 IFB 2 Pump Station 5 Distinctive Ring 1 Number Pump Station 6 IFB 1 . Pump Station 6 Distinctive Ring 1 Number Pump Station 7 IFB I Pump Station 8 IFB 1 Pump Station 8 Distinctive Ring 1 Number Residence - Connie Epperly IFB 1 Residence - Judy Woods IFB 1 Residence - Leona Orr IFB 1 Residence - Sandy Amodt IFB 1 Residence -Tim Clark IFB 1 Residence- Tom Brotherton IFB 1 Resource Center 1FB 2 Riverbend Driving Range LMB 2 (Nevada Bob's) Riverbend Golf Course 1F13 1 854-GOLF(Directory Listing in Alpha Form), Call Forwarding, Toll Restriction, Individual and Key Lines Charge Riverbend Golf Course LMB 2 SCAN (1 Senior Center IFB 2 • Seven Oaks IFB 1 Skyline Pump Station IFB 1 ^� Page 14 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Location Name Circuit Type Qty Additional Services Soos Creek 1FB 1 Soos Creek Distinctive Ring 1 Number Soosette Creek lFB 1 Spring Day Camp 1FB 1 S rin brook Creek 1FB 1 Springwood Apartments Police 1FB 2 Call Forwarding Precinct Traffic Engineering Storage 1FB 1 Building Victoria Ridge Pump Station 1FB 1 Water Quality Station - Mill 11713 1 Creek Water Treatment Plant 1FB 2 SCAN (1 Water Treatment Plant Distinctive Ring 1 Number 3.1.3 Toll Services Long Distance service is provided primarily through Washington State SCAN via a T-1 to Kent City Hall. The City uses a minimal amount of International service and very light usage across an 800 Toll Free line (terminated to US West DID number). Monthly usage averages: LD Service Dedicated Minutes Switched Minutes Interstate Outbound 4,272 277 Intrastate Outbound 39,733 321 International Outbound 157 0 Toll Free Inbound 0 135 3.1.4 Point-to-Point Services The City currently employs the following point-to-point circuits provided by US West: Near .. Far Circuit T City Hall Corrections Facility CKCF VG 32 1 City Hall Centennial Building VG 32 1 City Hall City Shops (PW O s) VG 32 1 City Shops (PW O s) PW O s Radio Building VG 32 1 Fire Station#74 (Fire Valley Communications VG 32 1 Administration Page 15 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • The City also currently utilizes the following OPX circuits provided by US West: From-:�. ..:, To City Hall Kent Historical Society 1 City Hall Municipal Court 1 City Hall Valley Communications 2 City Hall Golf Maintenance Shop 3 City Hall Russell Road Park 2 City Hall Fred Meyers Police Precinct 4 City Hall Nursery Annex 1 City Hall Mill Creek Park 1 City Hall Kent Memorial Park 1 3.1.6 Other Voice/Data Services Location Name; Circuit:Type, City Hall ISDN BRI 1 City Hall ISDN PRI Data l Fred Meyers Police Precinct ISDN BRI 1 Golf Maintenance Shop ISDN BRI 1 • Matt Knox Green House ISDN BRI 1 Nursery Annex ISDN BRI 1 ^� Residence - Connie Epperly ISDN BRI 1 Residence - Leona Orr ISDN BRI 1 Residence - Rico Yingling ISDN BRI 1 Residence -Tim Clark ISDN BRI 1 Springwood Apartments ISDN BRI 1 Police Precinct 3.2 General Requirements and Questions 3.2.1 Does your company have its own local network? Describe and note the locations of your owned facilities that reside within King County, including Points-Of-Presence (POP). A properly marked and referenced map may be used. Focal Response: Focal is a facilities-based CLEC. Our strength lies in the fact that we utilize the fiber networks of multiple competitive access providers. Those carriers currently in use by Focal Seattle are; AT&T, MCl/WorldCom, US West/Quest,ELI and Level 3. Our network reach is essentially the superset of all of the networks Focal leases combined within a given market. Our transmission network consists of multiple fiber-based SONET rings from multiple networks. It is more robust and diverse than the networks of other carriers who rely • solely on their own networks to deliver switched services. We can, if multiple access providers service a given location,deliver switched services over multiple providers to the same location. For a relatively small extra fee, we will provide software support to ensure any `overflow" Page 16 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • traffic is routed through to completion. Our trunking is diversely networked across the facilities of several access providers in such a way that an outage on any one carrier's facilities will not have a catastrophic effect on our ability to complete calls to and from our customers. 3.2.2 Does your company have its own long distance network? Identify the location of your nearest company-owned long distance switching facility and your nearest POP. A properly marked and referenced map may be used. Focal Response: Through leasing agreements,Focal uses.AT&T and MCl/WorldCom networks to carry our LD traffic. We are also in the process of building our own nationwide long-haul network. 3.2.3 Do you have any co-location agreements with other local carriers, including US West? Does this co-location give you direct access to their cable plant? Please list the Central Offices where you currently have co-location facilities. Also, describe any planned co-location facilities, including estimated dates for availability. Focal Response: Focal typically has direct trunk groups (DS-3 or more) to all ILEC tandems, and most end offices in the LATH,and we employ automatic overflow routing. In addition, we currently have collocation in two US West/Quest End Offices,providing access to the cable plant. Please see Attachment for diagram of current network backbone and Table for Access Provider Matrix. 3.2.4 Do you resell other carrier's services? Identify the carriers (local or inter-exchange) and describe how they are used. Also, list the approximate percentage of your total traffic handled by each of these third parties. Focal Response: No. Focal does not resell any other carriers services. 3.2.5 Describe the make, model, size, and software version of the system used for local switched calls (dial tone services). Focal Response: Make; Northern Telecom,Model; DMS 500, Software Version; NCS 12 3.2.6 Describe the make, model, size, and software version of the system used for long distance switched calls (inter-LATA services). Do you use Signaling System Seven? Focal Response: Make; Northern Telecom,Model; DMS 500, Software Version; NCS 12 SS7? Yes. The Nortel DMS 500 is a combination of the DMS 100, which is a `local"switch,and the DMS 250, which is a LD switch. Page 17 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP ' • 3.2.7 Provide a copy of your annual report or other pertinent financial information. Please see www.rocal.com Investor Relations/Annual Report. (37 pages) 3.3 Service, Reliability, and Performance 3.3.1 What steps have you taken to minimize single points of failure at the local POP? Describe how you have addressed potential problems with electrical power, switching systems, network connections, and physical links (cable). Focal Response: Our transmission network,consists of multiple fiber-based SONET rings from multiple networks. In the 674 LATA, we currently utilize the fiber networks from MCI, AT&T, US West and ELI. Each carrier enters our CO from four separate access points, adding another level of diversity and minimizing points of failure. Our trunking is diversely networked across these facilities in such a way that an outage on any one carrier's facilities will not have a catastrophic effect on our ability to complete calls to and from our customers. For example, if multiple access providers service a given location, we can deliver switched services over multiple providers to the same location. For a relatively small extra fee,Focal offers a "Fail-Safe" option. This would be available should you experience an outage on the PBX or in the event of line failure. We engineer the overall network close to a 1:1 relationship between subscriber lines and network trunks. In Seattle, the ratio is closer to .8:1 (i.e. we have more trunks than subscribers). We attempt to minimize blocked calls through overflow routing through LEC tandem switches. In a typical market, 80% of our traffic traverses direct trunks between our switch and the end office switches of the ILECs. The remainder is routed to/from the tandem switches. Electrical power is supplied from Seattle City Light. In the event of a power failure, Focal employs the following backup systems: Battery Backup - for SONET Terminals, DMS 500 Switches, and DS-3 multiplexers. UPS - backup for all AC powered equipment including customer collocated devices. Dedicated, On-Site Generator - to support all telecommunications equipment,battery plant,UPS and ancillary equipment in the event of a commercial power failure. The generator itself is a 500 KWh diesel with a one thousand-gallon tank located on the premises. We have also contracted with a local fuel company to supply us with a tanker for re-supply if necessary. The generator is tested (Started/Run) monthly and full load test quarterly. 3.3.2 How often do you update the software in your system? Does this require the system to be off-line, reset, or"down" at any time? Are there any routines, standard or otherwise, that would cause a service interruption (Explain)? J Page 18 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Focal Response: Software upgrades to our switch platform are performed when enhanced software loads warrant this, and are not service-affecting. Software specifically developed for a customer's need is implemented and coordinated with that customer. Switch port expansion maintenance is performed when network growth warrants and is not service effecting. Planned maintenance with any potential impact by our fiber providers' results in tailored customer notification to the extent of anticipated potential impact. 3.3.3 What type of network diagnostics do you perform? What network management tools do you use? Describe the type of system used, the level of active monitoring performed, and the procedures followed when detecting a service-affecting problem. Focal Response: We utilize Norte] DMS-500 switch platforms, which are fully redundant and extremely reliable. The switch itself monitors the performance of each circuit. In addition,our Network Operations Center (NOC) is responsible for 24n monitoring on a national level. Locally, we perform continuous monitoring and troubleshooting from our local NOC during normal business hours. Technicians both in the central office and in our control center monitor the network for both reliability and performance. They are further backed up by Nortel's remote surveillance center. We monitor network traffic hourly, daily, weekly and monthly to manage capacity. We routinely analyze trouble tickets from our electronic trouble management system to determine if there are recurring problems that can be minimized through new equipment or process reengineering. 3.3.4 What is your measured Mean Time Between Failure on the system? What is your measured Mean Time To Repair? Focal Response: Typically within four hours. 3.3.5 What do you offer for service performance guarantees as part of a Service Level Agreement? Focal Response: Our Service Level Agreement is incorporated into our Master Service Agreement in paragraphs 1 (b)and 3. Please see attachment... 3.3.6 Does your company have it's own set of published quality standards? Which industry quality standards does your company adhere to? Detail. Focal Response: Focal meets and in most cases exceeds the Telecommunications industry standards. 3.3.7 Do you have a disaster recovery plan in place if your network has a major problem (an inability to deliver calls)? Will you automatically reroute calls, and how? Focal Response: The programs Focal has in place to minimize catastrophic outages and to from impacting our network are as follows: Page 19 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Distributed Architecture - Focal distributes trunking, multiple network connection points such as for SS7, 911,411,and customer lines over multiple fiber infrastructures comprised of dual fiber, bi-directional, SONET rings. By distributing telephone traffic over multiple fiber infrastructures, the effects of a facilities failure are minimized. Network span failures are automatically rerouted (i.e. in milliseconds). Spans going to specific customers may not be re-routable dependent upon the utilization of multiple fiber providers at a given location. Alternate Routing Architecture— Focal switches are trunked to both the Access Tandem switches at the core of the ILEC networks as well as the End Office switches at the edges of the ILEC network. This design optimizes two way trunking to End Office switches as the primary route, with Access Tandem switches as alternate and overflow routes. This strategy minimizes the impact of trunking and other switching failures in the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) Fail-Safe Routing— In the case of a failed span,calls that are inbound to the customer can be rerouted to terminate on an INTRA-LATA alternate carrier's line that the customer has specified. Local Number Portability (LNP)— Focal has successfully implemented LNP to "port" subscriber numbers from RBOCs and other CLECs. The advent of LNP affords • subscribers the ability to distribute and diversify Direct Inward Dialing (DID) services ^� across the switches and networks of more than one carrier. By taking possession of their current numbers and moving some of them to a carrier other than the carrier currently providing DID service,subscribers can create their own tailored diversity. 3.3.8 What disaster recovery options do you offer clients if their system has a major problem? How is it invoked and what are the costs? Focal Response: Focal offers a service called "Fail-Safe". The DMS-500 will detect the outage, trip an alarm notifying our NOC and automatically invoke the Fail-Safe feature when a customers PBX system fails. Inbound calls are then re-rerouted from the Focal switch to a predetermined number of the customer's choice. For outbound calls from customer premise, we recommend maintaining several 1FB analog lines,e.g.fax machine,modems, etc. The cost for the Fail-Safe service is $75.00 per month for each terminated number. 3.3.9 What are your security procedures, protections for the client, and policies? Focal Response: Focal's CO is a secure site that requires card key access into the lobby, switch room and collocation room. All are monitored 7 x 24 by video camera. Client's proprietary data is protected as a standard course of business. Page 20 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP 3.3.10 What monitoring procedures do you use to detect toll fraud? Describe. Can you provide toll fraud protection (insurance)? Explain. Focal Response: Focal actively monitors for telephone fraud. The customer will be notified immediately whenever it appears to us that fraud has occurred. If the customer suspects fraudulent use of their phone system, then Focal will be more than happy to work with the customer to resolve the issue. 3.4 Access Requirements 3.4.1 The City has a need to operate at all times, including during local or regional natural disasters, civil unrest, and other situations that may affect normal service. To provide maximum flexibility, the City would like to consider a design that "shares" dial-tone services between the City's two main PBX locations. Ideally, this would include two diverse paths from two different switching centers, but with each, capable of routing all incoming calls if the other failed. Please answer the following: a. During normal operations, can your network direct some of the DID numbers to the T-1 serving the City Hall PBX, with the rest of the DID numbers directed to a T-1 in the Fire Administration PBX? For this to work,it would also be necessary that overflow from either T-1 route to the other T-1 when the all circuits of the original T-1 are busy or unavailable. Focal Response: Yes. Due to the built in diversity and functionality of our network,Focal would be able to provide these options. b. Would the overflow routing, mentioned above, work when a T-1 is not completing calls (red alarm mode) without manual activation required? Focal Response: Yes. Through our`Fail Safe" routing feature, we can redirect calls to a predetermined number of your choice,automatically. c. Will you be able to use two different switching centers or will all services come from one switch? Please provide the address of the switching center(s). Focal Response: In this case,all services would be provided through a single switching facility, located at 1511 - -6`s Ave,Seattle,Suite 200 d. Will the City Hall PBX be fed via your own fiber loop (dual entrance, alternate path, self healing or SONET type), or via your own fiber spur(single entrance), or via US West facilities (Type 2 services)? Page 21 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • Focal Response: This would depend on the facilities currently installed at City Hall. There may be several different options available. The objective would be to use both options or have the city loop directly into our Central Office. f. Will the Fire Administration PBX be fed via your own fiber loop (dual entrance, alternate path, self healing or SONET type), or via your own fiber spur(single entrance), or via US West facilities (Type 2 services)? Focal Response: This too would depend on the facilities currently installed. There may be several different options available. g. If you plan to serve both PBX systems via your own fiber, will each location be fed via independent runs, or will they share the same fiber spur or fiber loop? Will any facilities or equipment be shared between the two sites? Focal Response: Focal does not plan to provide service through it's own fiber to either of these buildings. If fiber is currently available through another carrier, then it may be an option to use another carrier's fiber. In any case,Focal will work with the city to provide maximum diversity. h. If physical facilities (electronics and cable pairs) are already in place, how long would it take • to activate a second T-1 at the Fire Administration location in response to an emergency situation? Does your proposal include enough electronics (at both the CO end and the PBX end)for your system to quickly activate the additional T-1 span? Is there any charge for this "standby"capacity? Focal Response: Assuming facilities were already in place, in a "stand-by" mode, it would take less than 24 hours to turn up the additional circuit. Pricing would be dependent on the the facilities/equipment that Focal has in place. 3.4.2 The City of Kent would like to consider Digital Signal (DS)-3 options to support the combined requirements for dial tone,point-to-point T-1's, Internet access, and miscellaneous circuits at the main location (City Hall). a. Will you provide the M1-3? Do you offer Digital cross-connect services? b. What is the cost of the M1-3? C. What would be the time frame to install fiber to the Kent City Hall? d. Do you have fiber near any other City site? What would be the installation time frame to install fiber to the Fire Administration location? e. Are you able to provide fixed wireless services via Local Multipoint Distribution System (LMDS) or Multi-frequency Multipoint Distribution System (MMDS)? • Explain. _ Page 22 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP f. Have you implemented any LMDS or MMDS in the area, or what is your time frame for implementation? g. Are there any additional expenses to the City to link fiber or LMDS/MJvMS service to a City of Kent site? Focal Response: Focal can facilitate a DS-3 with multiplexers, if required,from our fiber vendor partners. We are not prepared to offer the Frame or Wireless services at this time. 3.5 Voice Services 3.5.1 The City of Kent may want to port all DID numbers and some business line numbers. In addition, they may want to direct some of the DID numbers to a T-1 terminated at City Hall and some of the DID numbers to a T-1 terminated at Fire Administration (see 3.4.1.) Focal Response: At end of each question. a. Are you able to port the entire block of 3,680 DID numbers (see appendix C for DID number ranges)? Can you port the individual business line numbers? Yes b. What is the maximum quantity of numbers that you are able to port in one day? 500 C. Please identify any restrictions or capacity limitations that you have in number portability. Requires project planning for this amount of numbers. d. Please identify the cost to port the DID numbers and business line numbers. N/A e. Is there a charge to block incoming DID calls after a certain number of incoming calls have been directed to the T-1 trunks (keeping some circuits always available for outgoing calls)? Yes—$10.00 per channeled port. f. Do you provide any options for number translations in your switch, such as `ball forwarding" or substituting a DTIIS string on a ported number that conflicts with the PBX internal numbering plan? Is there any charge for such service(s)? Yes,we can "forward"up to 10 digits with no extra charge. 3.5.2 Provide the minimum billable time interval per call and incremental billable time measurement for long distance calls. a. Interstate b. Intrastate C. Canadian d. Mexico e. International f. 800 g. Calling card Focal Response: Minimum billable time interval for all domestic LD is the first 18 seconds, then billed in 6-second increments thereafter. International LD is the first 30 seconds,then 6. second increments thereafter. Page 23 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • 3.5.2 Do you automatically block any calling destinations (US or International)? Focal Response: No. Only when specified by the customer. 3.5.4 List below the costs for any surcharge when using a calling card or travel card: a. Interstate b. Intrastate C. Canadian d. Mexico e. International Focal Response: There are no Focal surcharges related to calling card calls. However, there is a $.30 surcharge for any calls that originate from a payphone. 3.5.5 Provide minimum billable time interval per call and incremental billable time measurement for calling card calls. Focal Response: Minimum billable time interval for all domestic LD is first 18 seconds, then billed in 6-second increments thereafter. • Do you deactivate calling cards that have not been used within a specific length of time? Focal Response: No. Do you automatically block any calling destinations? Focal Response: No. 3.5.6 Are directory assistance services available? Focal Response: Yes Are they provided directly, or through a third party? Focal Response: Third Party What is the charge for directory assistance for a local number? Focal Response: $0.50 per call • What is the charge for directory assistance for an out-of-area number(inter-LATA)? Page 24 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Focal Response: $0.75 per call 3.5.7 Are operator assistance services available? Focal Response: Yes Are they provided directly, or through a third party? Focal Response: Third Party. What are the charges for operator assisted calls? Focal Response: $0.95 per call 3.5.8 What is the cost to provide Personal Identification Numbers (PIN)? There is no cost to provide PIN numbers. How many digits are in a PIN number? There is a card number of seven digits,plus a three-digit PIN number. Do you have a limitation on the amount of PIN numbers that a customer can utilize? No. Can the long distance be billed directly to a department? Please explain. The long distance,as with all calls, is broken out on a single invoice by "number called from". Focal offers on-line invoicing that allows the customer to manipulate billing information into any format they choose. 3.5.9 Do you require a Primary Inter-exchange Carrier(PIC) choice to be made,or can lines be assigned to no-PIC? We can assign a trunk as a no-PIC, however,you would have to use a carrier access code to make all long distance calls. What is the monthly charge if the line is designated as no-PIC? No charge. Can a user still dial a carrier access code (10IOxxx) on a line designated as no-PIC? This would be required to even initiate a long distance call. Do you support all inter-exchange carriers, or do you only provide PIC status to certain carvers (if so, provide list)? Focal supports all IXC PIC codes. 3.5.10 If you are providing the inter-exchange PIC services, do you have a minimum usage charge for each line or account? Explain. Focal Response: Focal will PIC inter-exchange service, but only if the customer has a minimum of one T-1 in service with us. We do not provide PIC Long Distance service as a stand-alone service. Also, there are no minimum usage requirements. 3.5.11 When does the billing time begin for long distance and other types of toll call based pricing: from the start of the call (connection to the network); the completion to the answering party (connection to the called party); or some other method(please describe)? Focal Response: Billing starts when caller is connected to the called party. Page 25 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP • 3.5.12 Do you charge extra for usage billing detail reports? Do you offer software that allows for custom manipulation and report production of the usage detail by the customer? Please describe and list all associated charges. Focal Response: Focal does not charge for any billing detail reports. As an alternative to paper invoices, we offer a secure web-based invoice reporting system called Invoice Domain, which allows the user to download and customize report production. There are no special software requirements nor any charges associated with using this unique service. 3.5.13 Do you offer standard analog business line service to locations that are "off-net" (site not directly connected to your backbone), either via co-location or other methods? Are there a minimum number of lines required at a site for analog business line provisioning? Is such service limited to certain US West Central Offices (CO) or serving areas (if so, please list availability)? Focal Response: For the purposes of this RFP,no. 3.5.14 Do you offer standard analog single line OPX services to "off-net" locations? Is there a minimum number of OPX circuits required at a site for provisioning? Is such service limited to certain US West CO or serving areas (if so, please list availability)? • Focal Response: For the purposes of this RFP, no. 3.5.15 Which features are available for business line service? Provide a price schedule for each. Focal Response: N/A 3.5.16 Do you offer quantity-based discounts for multiple business line services at a single location (if so, please describe)? Focal Response: N/A Page 26 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP ` 3.6 Data Services 3.6.1 Is your company able to provide Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) service? a. What are the speeds that you support? b. Provide the pricing by speed. C. Are you able to supply the xDSL modems? d. Provide the pricing by modem speed. Focal Response: Focal DSL service is in the process of being deployed in the Seattle market. 3.6.2 Is ISDN service available in this area? Focal Response: Yes. PRI only. a. What speeds are supported—Basic Rate Interface (BRI)/PRI? Focal Response: PRI = 1.544 Mbps b. Do you support Automatic Number Identification (ANI)on ISDN lines? Focal Response: Yes. c. Provide pricing. Focal Response: Please see pricing attachment 3.6.3 Describe any additional services available (i.e. Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Switched Multimegabit Data Service (SMDS),etc). Focal Response: Focal provides many other unique services. Please see attachments for detailed information and description. 3.7 Customer Service 3.7.1 Can all services and locations be detailed on one bill? Focal Response: Yes. Provide a sample bill with explanation. Focal Response: Please see attachment 4VCan the bills be customized? Describe. Page 27 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Focal Response: Yes. Through Focal's award winning Invoice Domain service,which is ) provided as a courtesy to our customers, you have the ability to download and manipulate the data in any format. This allows you to customize your billing to suit your reporting needs. Do you provide electronic billing or bill-on-disk options? Focal Response: Focal provides detailed electronic invoicing through our Invoice Domain service, but can not be paid electronically. Customers receive a hard-copy summary for payment. We do not provide a "bill-on-disk" option,as our Invoice Domain service alleviates the need for this. 3.7.2 Do you offer any emergency routing capabilities in the event of service outages at the City? Are these a part of any formal "Business Recovery" services or offerings? Please describe and list costs. Focal Response: Yes. In the event of an outage at the City's facilities (i.e. PBX),Focal offers emergency routing through our "Fail-Safe" service,in which all inbound calls to the City of Kent can be automatically redirected to a pre-designated number. 3.7.3 Please describe requirements and details for any special package or bundled pricing arrangements. Include the proposed costs in Section 4. Focal Response: N/A 3.7.4 Account Service a. The City of Kent would like quarterly account reviews. How are account reviews provided, and how often? Focal Response: The Account Manager and their customer can review their accounts as often as the customer wishes. b. Identify the members of the account team that will be assigned to The City of Kent. Focal Response: Once a customer has signed on with Focal,the account team will consist of the Primary Account Manager, a Primary Customer Service Representative,and a Primary Sales Engineer. These individuals will be dedicated to serving the City of Kent,and will provide you with a Customer Care Manual. They will deliver this manual to you and go over all procedures and discuss any issues or questions you may have. C. Describe your service order processing procedures and time frames. Page 28 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Focal Response: Once the contract has been signed,the Account Manager and Sales Engineer will work very closely with your telecom engineer to ensure the smooth provisioning of the services ordered. Circuit orders typically can take up to 30 business days to complete, depending on available facilities. d. What method do you use for trouble reporting? Focal Response: Focal Communications does provide 24 hours a day, 7 days a week problem resolution for our Customers. Each Customer is provided a toll free number to our National Corporate Customer Care Department in Chicago at the time of service installation,along with detailed information about their circuit identification (provided in the Customer Care Manual issued at the time of service installation). The Customer Care Representative will obtain specific information about the problem being experienced for entry into a trouble ticket. If necessary,a release of the circuit for testing may be required. A Switch Technician will work the problem. Both the Switch Technician and Customer Care Representative will provide status to the Customer during the repair period. The status will be provided on an hourly basis,should the problem persist beyond one hour. Upon restoration of service,the Customer Care Representative or Switch Technician will contact the customer for authorization to close the trouble ticket. e. What are your escalation procedures? Include a list of personnel and emergency telephone numbers. Focal Response: Escalation procedures,along with a list of contact names and numbers,are provided to each customer at the time of service installation, and reviewed in detail with the Customer, the Account Manager and Customer Service Representative. All of this information is included in the Customer Care Manual. 3.7.5 Do you offer special services not specifically requested? Please detail. Focal Response: One of the services the City of Kent may be particularly interested in, is Focal's Toll Free Rewards offering. With this service, the City of Kent would receive$.005 per minute rebate, for every minute of outbound toll free calls. This is reflected as a credit on the Focal invoice, and at times, can be significant. Please review enclosed product literature for further details regarding this and other Focal services. Page 29 Q 5 U W 8 �S. O N G C y w o •; E g w i0 .v i C O N OO � C i co cn � ~ Cd00 cd `n L) O w 6R p O CO O y 0 > y Y it Y IUI.yy bj w+ O CI 00 O O. c Con m N •j L, •� L. � O C c4d O O b0 w O e >,s G OCOcc Cd u T s N i W rl X V) O M CA N 0 b u y O00 41 i U N w O y G� ¢ ca0-0 Z b p s o 0."cd o y Y aC '- C. y oq _ as y 0 yy 3 z U 40. 0 O O y i° O N t« CA r- co. .L a N ?C F co co 4. Ni c c z C t. O _T 0 > G. C O y vj (AC4 al CQ C O 0 4. c Ol [d R7 h d itae c c Fy.CMG o — a o iMs a o o =o E U � U O .U. �v W :� ' > b c � � °' G c lw cu u. a fJ. L. 0 • � g 8 s o it 00 O 00 o r7 69 i. O 0o N 69 ry 00 00 w O .� tsp9 69 y ^-� 'ct N N --� .r �--i �-+ .-� .--i -y �--i N N M �-+ N •--� -r p N N r-+ T C E- > N > �\ YJ � C � v E. T T El T T.E TIE E EIE _ x O O ti U 0 3 o ° O E o~ M 'ct to �o r O C .�C 46, O d ca _ rrrr r Grrr x cv c v U iva °. ' o r- G o 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 G c �' ,00, ° c c Qi �' .0 C� ° }' N .�+ a0 0 .as ate+ ate.+ i u O �. V1 C/) CL G Cn V1 o aGi .� o h V. °�' b °? o 0 0 o a�i o r aai a�i 00 � � > UUUUUAu2w wVww w ¢ wwZ wz 0 70zz =0I � � � n, t c L a� > w L I� M L N L S w N -Rt N "'� .-r .-� .--i �--i .--� .-ti .--i �--i .-ti .-r .--i N Cp to bb a F [�+ > > > > > .�. U a a C a G o a cl `i' o pq W g 0 Q � � z E G G3 U � o � EMc+� � � v� �n �o �o � 0000 o ' 0 � � o .�°'. U c a c c a c c a a c c U CA p ti c a' c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cti x x 0 .� V) CIO)) v) Cn V) aa aai u aci a aci Cd c U .. 0 0 a a a a c. 4 o v o o b o CIA z � = � E = E = = = 0 a 0 0 u 0 ark o. aaa axawaxrx o; r rA c 0.4 L L N L .ti r O U C N N N .r .--i .-y N -- O b0 OA 0 0 O y 0 2 .+ a Q O O C 19 O H > > N O b N .w. U F+ U ~ .�+ ate+ � � � •�.+ Paz ter. .. r - -� Az OE cn a oo 0 CArA c o o x E E a s42 y x 0 A A 0 0 yCL U U ¢ c c Q •c p o C7 C7 E x ;ti �., .� .J � V o cA -v a 0 a °� U o c c� E "t "o > Z > ON a°i a>i x5. $ 00 00 0 CL C a o U � wEnv) v) vn vnrnrnrna. a � � \ k § � m � � m § � � / t '§ k d » § \ 7 � \ _ 2 o ; = a 2 \ § § B ) e 2 @ Q m @ m x x x k x x x k x � � 555 000 0 0 . � � a � aaa � a Qe � ow >> > > 000000000 � a m CL / 2 Q 9 a 2 � ` § $ _ ` o ( o s ( a ] ■ k ) / x § % r o _ % § 2 4 m � . o a 2 o f 2 © < § % = § 2 ) A � j2U U ■ § u �G �\ AJ > 25 / / g / 12 0 h H 3 L k" 3 Ln e� M O fA L+ 7 P7 6 L N w i 4i " O JN Oh v O . C N W+ C 409Q °0 II K O � O v O L 6r7 H aa � aa � � � aa y (� W CG CG CQ W GU Pq L� W ey 11 s ° s 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 z AAAAAAAAAA � gq v0.4 � bb � uLz. w w a U Ge t $ se .Q0CL , o c� W ct,� C� m� o �i U u x „ � ;,, U c h y •O o f4 it c d o O K O COS U_ E_ . C G C • • • • y p G u U .-1 04 F- Q G U d O Q U U U U Q O a U G W U N tn cu o 3 o + a i s i ^ u� > 4UwC7 zrxwwwLna°. aim .°, a FOC/\LT� Local without limits'" MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT • THIS AGREEMENT, dated , 2000, is between Focal Communications Corporation, 200 N. i LaSalle St., Suite 1100,Chicago,IL 60601,for and on behalf of its regional operating subsidiaries that will provide services hereunder(each such subsidiary is referred to as`Focal"),and Name and address of"Customer'': 1. General. (a) This Agreement governs Focal's duration in excess of 5 hours occurs in any calendar provision of services to Customer or its affiliates under month. any service order from Customer or an affiliate accepted by Focal (each, a "Service Order"). The term (b) "Service Interruption" means that the affected End-User" refers to the party providing a Service circuit is unusable and not in use by End-User as a Order and receiving service under this Agreement. result of the failure of Focal-controlled equipment or personnel. A Service Interruption shall not occur or (b) Focal shall meet the performance specifications, if continue if the interruption occurs because of a failure any, contained in respective Service Orders. If in equipment that is not under Focal's control or performance specifications are not contained in a circumstances outside the control of Focal. If Focal Service Order, Focal's performance will meet provides reasonable notice that a service disruption prevailing industry standards for equivalent services. will occur to enable Focal to perform maintenance, such service disruption will not be considered a Service (c) End-User will cooperate with Focal to enable Focal Interruption. to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement and associated Service Orders (e.g., End-User will afford 4. Term & Termination. (a) This Agreement shall Focal safe and reasonable access to End-User's terminate upon the termination of the last to expire premises to enable Focal to install, maintain, and Service Order. Except as provided in subsections (b), repair equipment) and allow Focal to use End-User (c), and (d), Service Orders may not be cancelled or Customer's Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") terminated during their respective initial terms. to offer additional services and otherwise assist End- Service Orders shall automatically renew on a month- User. If Focal installs any equipment at End-User's to-month basis. Subject to Section 3(b), a Service premises, it shall remain the property of Focal and Order may be terminated by a party with at least 30 • End-User shall be responsible for any loss of or days prior written notice to the end of its initial terms ^ damage to such equipment,unless such loss or damage or a month end thereafter. is caused by Focal's negligence or willful misconduct. (b)If an End-User cancels a Service Order prior to the (d) Each End-User will acquire services solely for its expiration of its initial term, such End-User shall pay own account, and not for resale or distribution in any to Focal, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty, manner. the sum of(i)the nonrecurring charges associated with the establishment of service as provided in the Service 2. Prices & Payments. (a) Initial prices are as set Order, (ii) any disconnection, cancellation, or similar forth in each Service Order. Focal may increase prices charge incurred by Focal as a result of such effective after the initial term of a Service Order upon cancellation, (iii) the sum of the remaining recurring 90 days notice. charges for the initial term of the cancelled Service Order, less a present value discount of 8% per annum, (b) End-User shall pay recurring charges monthly in and (iv) the costs incurred by Focal to remove and advance and usage charges monthly in arrears. return to Focal's facility any Focal equipment located Payments are due net 30 day from the invoice date. at End-User's premises. Focal may charge interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on all past due, undisputed amounts. (c) Focal may terminate or suspend this Agreement and/or any associated Service Order at any time if W (c) End-User will be liable for recurring charges as of an End-User fails to pay when due any amount owed the due date set forth in the applicable Service Order. to Focal or any affiliate, except for amounts an End- If End-User requests that Focal make a service call to User is disputing in good faith and with particularity, End-User's premises, Focal may charge its customary (ii) an End-User materially breaches this Agreement rate for on-site service if Focal determines that it was and fails to cure such breach within 30 days after not at fault for the problem (e.g., if the problem giving notice; (iii) an End-User uses services provided by rise to the service request is caused by a third party's Focal or any illegal or fraudulent purpose,(iv)an End- equipment or network). User becomes insolvent or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or a trustee or receiver is . 3. Credits. (a)End-User shall receive a credit equal in appointed to manage an End-User's business, or (v) a amount to (i) one day's recurring charges for any statutory,judicial,regulatory,or tariff change makes it circuit where a Service Interruption of such circuit of a impossible or commercially impractical, in Focal's ) duration of 5 hours or less occurs in any calendar discretion, for Focal to continue to provide service month and 60 one month's recurring charges for any under this Agreement and/or associated Service circuit where a Service Interruption of such circuit of a Orders. (d)An End-User may terminate a Service Order at any YEAR PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE OF THE time if Focal materially breaches this Agreement or a EVENT GIVING RISE TO CUSTOMER'S OR END- Service Order and fails to cure such breach within 30 USER'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. • days after notice, except with respect to a Service Interruption, which is governed by Section 3. It shall 6. Assignment. Neither party may assign this not constitute a material breach if Focal's inability to Agreement without the prior written consent of the fulfill its obligations under this Agreement or a Service other party, provided either party may assign this Order results from a disaster,fire,national emergency, Agreement to any affiliate or to any person that accident, the act or omission of a third party acquires all or substantially all of its assets or telecommunications provider, or similar event outside business. End-Users and Focal subsidiaries that are Focal's control. assigned rights under this Agreement or provide and accept Service Orders shall be third-party beneficiaries (e) The rights and obligations of the parties that by of,and shall be considered parties to,this Agreement. their nature extend beyond the expiration or termination this Agreement, including without 7. 911 Calls. Customer acknowledges that 911, E911, limitation, End-User's obligation to pay sums due, and similar emergency service numbers ("911 calls") shall survive. will not route properly if an End-User is physically located in rate center other than the rate center 5. Warranty and Limitation of Liability. (a) Except as associated with the calling number (a "Remote Rate expressly set forth in this Agreement, Focal makes no Center"). To assure the timely delivery of emergency warranties, express or implied, and disclaims all services if an End-User is located in a Remote Rate warranties of merchantability or fitness for a Center, Customer will bar the routing of 911 calls particular purpose. through Focal's network and arrange for the proper (b) CUSTOMER'S AND END-USERS' SOLE RIGHT routing of 911 calls. UPON FOCAL'S BREACH OF ITS COVENANTS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE TO 8. Miscellaneous. A party may only commence TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION litigation under this Agreement if it previously 4(d). THE CREDITS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3 provided the party against which the action may be CONSTITUTE CUSTOMER'S AND END-USERS' brought with 60 days prior written notice of its EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR SERVICE intention to commence litigation. In the event of INTERRUPTIONS. FOCAL SHALL IN NO EVENT litigation,the prevailing party,if any,shall be entitled BE LIABLE FOR ACTUAL, INCIDENTAL, to obtain reimbursement for its legal costs and • CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR expenses from the other party. This Agreement and SIMILAR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF ANY the associated Service Orders constitute a binding SERVICE INTERRUPTION OR BREACH. agreement of each party, enforceable in accordance CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS with their terms, and supersede and replace any prior LIMITATION OF LIABILITY PROVISION IS A or contemporaneous agreements or representations. MATERIAL PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO This Agreement does not create a partnership, joint EVENT SHALL FOCAL BE LIABLE FOR ANY venture, agency, or similar relationship between the AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS PAID BY parties. CUSTOMER OR THE AFFECTED END-USER TO FOCAL UNDER THIS AGREEMENT DURING THE IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION CUSTOMER: By By Its Its 2 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 • SECTION 5 - CONTRACTS /AGREEMENTS — 5.1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS The City of Kent, will issue its contract for the final agreement between the City and the Vendor. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions used in the Vendor's documents and the City's terms and conditions, the City's terms shall prevail. The City of Kent may require the following provisions in its contract with the Vendor, and the Vendor, as a condition of tendering its proposal, agrees to be bound by these provisions if included in the City's contract. In the case of inconsistencies or disputes among the Agreement, the City's RFP, and the Vendor's Response to the RFP, the following order of precedence shall prevail in descending order of priority: 1. The Agreement and any written and fully signed amendments thereto. 2. The City's RFP and any written amendments thereto. 3. The Vendor's Response to the RFP and any authorized written amendment or clarifications thereto. To the extent any terms or conditions of the Agreement are invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, they are deemed to be omitted and the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired. 5.2 DEFECTIVE OR UNAUTHORIZED WORK The City of Kent reserves its right to withhold payment from the Vendor for any defective or unauthorized work. Defective or unauthorized work includes, without limitation: work and materials that do not conform to the requirements of the Agreement; and extra work and materials furnished without the written approval of the City. If the Vendor is unable, for any reason, to satisfactorily complete any portion of the work, the City may complete the work by contract or otherwise, and the Vendor shall be liable to the City for any additional costs incurred by the City. "Additional Costs" shall mean all reasonable costs, including legal costs and attorney fees, incurred by the City beyond the maximum contract price specified above. The City further reserves its right to deduct the cost to complete the contract work, including any additional costs, from any and all amounts due, or which become due to the Vendor. 5.3 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The parties intend that an Independent Contractor- Employer relationship will be created by the Agreement, the City of Kent being interested only in the results obtained under the Agreement. 5.4 TERMINATION The City of Kent may terminate the Agreement for good cause. "Good Cause" shall include, without limitation, any one or more of the following events: — J Page 36 City of Kent Telerommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 a. The Vendor's refusal, or failure, to supply a sufficient number of properly skilled • workers or proper materials for completion of the Agreement work. b. The Vendor's failure to complete the work within the time specified in the Agreement. C. The Vendor's failure to make full and prompt payment to sub-vendors or for material or labor. d. The Vendor's failure to comply with federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations. e. The Vendor's filing for bankruptcy or becoming adjudged bankrupt. f. The Vendor's continued and/or flagrant failure to comply with any terms or conditions of the contract. If the City terminates the Agreement for good cause, the Vendor shall not receive any further monies due under the Agreement until the contract work is completed. 5.5 CHANGES The City of Kent may issue a written change order for any change in the contract work during the performance of the Agreement. If the Vendor determines, for any reason, that a change order is necessary, the Vendor must submit a written change order request to an authorized agent of the City within 14 calendar days of the date the Vendor knew or should have known of the facts and events giving rise to the requested change. If the City determines that the change increases or decreases the Vendor's costs or time for performance, the City will make an equitable adjustment. • The City will attempt, in good faith, to reach agreement with the Vendor on all equitable adjustments. However, if the parties are unable to agree, the City will determine the equitable adjustment, as it deems appropriate. The Vendor shall proceed with the change order work upon receiving either a written change order from the City, or an oral order from the City before actually receiving the written change order. If the Vendor fails to require a change order within the time allowed, the Vendor waives its right to make any claim, or submit subsequent change order requests, for that portion of the contract work. If the Vendor disagrees with the equitable adjustment, the Vendor must complete the change order work; however, the Vendor may elect to protest the adjustment as provided below: 5.5.1 Procedure and Protest by the Vendor. If the Vendor disagrees with anything required by a change order, another written order, or an oral order from the City of Kent, including any direction, instruction, interpretation,or determination by the City, the Vendor shall: a. Immediately give a signed written notice of protest to the City. b. Supplement the written protest within 14 calendar days with a written statement that provides the following information: 1) The date of the Vendor's protest. 2) The nature and circumstances that caused the protest. 3) The provisions in the Agreement that support the protest. 4) The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested work and how that estimate was determined. Page 37 City of Kent Telerornmunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 c. An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change or disruption, if the Vendor is asserting a schedule change or disruption. d. The Vendor shall keep complete records of extra costs and time incurred as a result of the protested work. The City shall have access to any of the Vendor's records needed for evaluating the protest. e. The City will evaluate all protests, provided the procedures in this section are followed. If the City determines that a protest is valid, the City, upon review, may adjust payment for work or time by an equitable adjustment. No adjustment will be made for an invalid protest. 5.5.2 Vendor's Duty to Complete Protested Work. In spite of any protest, the Vendor shall proceed promptly with the work as the City of Kent has ordered. 5.5.3 Vendor's Acceptance of Changes. The Vendor accepts all requirements of a change order by: (1) endorsing it, (2) writing a separate acceptance, or(3) not protesting in the way this section provides. A change order that is accepted by the Vendor, as provided in this section, shall constitute full payment and final settlement of all claims for contract time, and for direct, indirect and consequential costs, including costs of delays related to any work, either covered or affected by the change. 5.5.4 Failure to Protest Constitutes Waiver. By not protesting as this section provides, the Vendor also waives any additional entitlement and accepts from the City of Kent any written or oral order(including directions, instructions, interpretations, and • determination). 5.5.5 Failure to Follow Procedures Constitutes Waiver. By failing to follow the procedures / of this section, the Vendor completely waives any claims for protested work and accepts from the City of Kent any written or oral order(including directions, instructions, interpretations, and determination). 5.6 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS 5.6.1 Payment Method. All payments shall be made in U.S. Dollars within forty-five (45) days of invoice, so long as the City has accepted and approved the products and services listed on the invoice. 5.6.2 Termination of A reement. Should either party terminate the Agreement prior to the expiration of its term, the Vendor shall refund to the City its proportionate share of the unused fee based on the total number of calendar days remaining under the Agreement divided by the total number of calendars established for the then applicable term of the Agreement. 5.7 CLAIMS The Vendor shall give written notice to the City of Kent of all claims within 14 calendar days of the occurrence of the events giving rise to the claims. Any claim for damages, additional payment for any reason, or extension of time, whether under the Agreement or otherwise, shall be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Vendor unless a timely written claim is made in Page 38 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 strict accordance with the applicable provisions of the Agreement; or, if(and only if) no such . provision is applicable, unless that claim is set forth in detail in writing and received by the City within seven calendar days from the date the Vendor knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to the claim. Any claim filed before the Vendor has fully pursued and exhausted all remedies for changes, including change orders and protests, shall also be conclusively deemed to have been waived by the Vendor. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE,WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED SHALL BE AN ABSOLUTE WAIVER OF ANY CLAIMS ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM THE FACTS OR EVENTS SURROUNDING THAT CLAIM, OR CAUSED BY THAT DELAY. 5.8 DAMAGES AND LIMITATION ON LIABILITY The Vendor's indemnification shall apply to all damages incurred by the City or third parties, whether direct, indirect, actual, consequential, or incidental. However, the Vendor's liability for damages to the City for any cause whatsoever, regardless of form or action, whether in contract, or tort, shall be limited to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). 5.9 INDEMNIFICATION The Vendor, for itself, its employees, agents, consultants, and contractors, shall defend, indemnify and hold the City of Kent, its officers,officials, employees, and agents harmless from any and all third party claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Agreement, but only to the extent of the Vendor's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of the Vendor's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. IT IS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS INDEMNIFICATION CONSTITUTES THE VENDOR'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE, TITLE 51 RCW, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE MUTUALLY NEGOTIATED THIS WAIVER. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement. 5.10 ROYALTIES AND PATENTS The Vendor shall pay royalties and license fees and defend all suits resulting from claims regarding same on all software and materials purchased outright from the Vendor and installed according to the specifications of the City. 5.11 INSURANCE 5.11.1 The Vendor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the agreement insurance of the types and in the amounts described below against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of Page 39 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 the work by the Vendor, its agents, representatives,employees, sub-consultants,or • subcontractors. The Vendor shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: a. Automobile Liability. Automobile liability insurance (including commercial automobile liability insurance) with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and b. Commercial General Liability. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and in the aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury, and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, and employer's liability. C. Errors and Omissions. Errors and omissions insurance written on a claims- made basis with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. d. Excess Liability. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate e. Deductible. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Vendor. • f. Endorsement. Prior to contract execution, the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as an additional insured on the insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Vendor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. Copies of such documents shall be provided to the City prior to contract execution. g. Coverage. The Vendor's insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. h. Primary. The Vendor's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, and the City shall be given thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. i. Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with RCW 51.12.020, which requires subject employers to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers and Employer's Liability or Stop Gap Insurance in the amount of$500,000. 5.11.2 Failure. A failure to provide and maintain insurance coverage and written acceptance of the tendered policy shall be deemed to constitute a material breach of agreement by the Vendor. The City reserves the right to then award the Agreement Page 40 City of Kent Telecommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 to another bidder. In order to protect the public interest and notwithstanding any • provisions herein to the contrary, the Vendor's failure to comply with any provision in this section shall subject the Agreement to immediate termination without notice and without recourse by any person. 5.11.3 THE VENDOR SHALL SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY IMMUNITY THAT MAY BE GRANTED IT UNDER THE WASHINGTON STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT,TITLE 51, RCW. Further, this indemnification obligation under the Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation, or benefits payable to any third party under worker's compensation acts, disability benefits acts, or other employee benefits acts. 5.12 CITY OF KENT BUSINESS LICENSE Persons/firms doing business with the City must have a valid City of Kent business license if they maintain a permanent location within the City; OR maintain a permanent location outside the City having an employee who solicits business from the City. Questions may be directed to City of Kent, Customer Service Department, Geneva Obenchain (253) 856-5210. 5.13 ANTI-KICKBACK No officer or employee of the City of Kent, having the power or duty to perform an official act . or action related to the Agreement, shall have or acquire any interest in the contract, or have solicited, accepted or granted a present or future gift, favor, service or other thing of value from or to any person involved in the contract. 5.14 NONDISCRIMINATION No individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with the Agreement because of race, color, creed, marital status, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, Vietnam era or disabled veteran's status, age, or disability. The Vendor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local nondiscrimination laws, regulations and policies. 5.15 EQUAL EMPLOYEMENT The Vendor shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances prohibiting discrimination in employment with regard to age, sex, race,color, creed, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. Further, the Vendor will comply with the City's Minority and Women Contractors Policy(Administrative Policy Number 1.2, attached as Appendix B) and also provide all written statements required by that policy. Page 41 City of Kent Teleconmumications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 5.16 MISCELLANEOUS. • 5.16.1 Compliance with Laws. The Vendor shall comply with all federal, state and local , laws, rules and regulations throughout every aspect in the performance of the Agreement. 5.16.2 Work Performed at The Vendor's Risk. The Vendor shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the Agreement. All work shall be done at the Vendor's own risk, and the Vendor shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools, or other articles used or held for use in connection with the work. 5.16.3 Nonwaiver of Breach. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those terms and rights, and they shall remain in full force and effect. 5.16.4 Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law. The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. If the parties are unable to settle any dispute, difference, or claim arising from the parties' performance of the Agreement, the exclusive means of resolving that dispute, difference, or claim, shall only be by filing suit exclusively under the venue, rules, and jurisdiction of the King County Superior Court located in Kent, King County, • Washington, unless the parties agree in writing to an alternative dispute resolution process; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section 5.9. 5.16.5 Attorney's Fees. Subject to the indemnification and limitation of the Vendor's liability provisions set forth in the Agreement, if any action or suit is brought with respect to a matter or matters covered by the Agreement, each party shall be responsible for all its own costs and expenses incident to such proceedings, including all costs and attorney's fees. 5.16.6 Written Notice. All communications regarding the Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the Agreement, unless otherwise notified. Any written notice shall become effective upon delivery, but in any event, three (3) calendar days after the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in the Agreement. 5.16.7 Assi ng ment. Any assignment of the Agreement by the Vendor without the written consent of the City shall be void. 5.16.8 Modification. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of the Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized • representative of the City and the Vendor. Page 42 City of Kent Telerommunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21.00 5.16.9 Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or sentences of the Agreement • are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the Agreement and the remainder shall remain in full force and effect. 5.16.10 Publicity, Use of Information. The Vendor agrees that it will not sell, publish, or reveal to any third party any information about the City of Kent which it obtains during the RFP, implementation, or maintenance periods of the Agreement. This restriction applies to any information obtained whether it be in the public domain or considered proprietary. In addition, the Vendor agrees that it will not at any time use the City of Kent in promotional materials or as a reference without the prior written consent of the City of Kent. 5.18 TERMINATION 5.18.1 Default. The Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party is in default of any provisions of the Agreement, so long as the default is not corrected within thirty (30)calendar days of the receipt of written notice of the default from the non-defaulting party. For the purposes of this Section "default" shall include any failure to abide by the terms or conditions of the Agreement including the City's RFP and the Vendor's response to RFP. This written notice must particularly describe the alleged default or material breach. • 5.18.2 Acts of Insolvency. Without waiving any other rights granted to the City in the Agreement, the City may terminate the Agreement between the Vendor and the City by written notice if the Vendor makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, suffers or permits an appointment of a receiver for its business assets, becomes subject to any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law whether domestic or foreign, or has wound up or liquidated its business, voluntarily, or otherwise. 5.18.3 Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate the Agreement, including all related agreements (e.g. maintenance agreements, etc.) in whole, or from time to time in part, whenever the Vendor is prevented from proceeding with the project work by reason of a preliminary, special, or permanent restraining order from a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such restraining order is primarily caused by either acts or omissions of the Vendor or by acts or omissions of persons or agencies other than the Vendor. Additionally, the City may also terminate the Agreement in whole or in part if the City's Information Services Director determines that termination is in the best interests of the City. 5.18.4 Survival Beyond Termination. The provisions of sections 5.1, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.17 shall survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement for any reason. 5.18.5 Claims. Any claim for damages incurred by either party resulting from breach of the agreement by the other party shall survive termination. The remedies provided herein shall not be deemed exclusive but shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all Page 43 City of Kent Teleromnumirations Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 other remedies provided by law and equity. No delay or omission in the exercise of • any remedy herein provided or otherwise available to the Vendor shall impair or affect its right to exercise the same. 5.19 DEFINITIONS Final Acceptance Final Acceptance means the date, as determined by the City, that the products, services, equipment, and documentation have been delivered, placed in operation, tested by the City, and provided full functionality for a period of at least 30 continuous calendar days. Notice Any notice required or permitted to be made or given pursuant to the Agreement shall be made or given on the date of mailing if sent to the other party by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the other party at the address set forth within the RFP or Response to RFP. Request for Proposal or RFP Request for Proposal or RFP means the City's published document seeking proposals for Telecommunications Services, issued August 4, 2000. Response to RFP Response to RFP means The Vendor's response to City's RFP, • dated August 4, 2000, together with The Vendor's subsequent documentation submitted on September 18, 2000, and together with The Vendor's demonstrations and supporting documentations presented at City's site (if requested). Updates Update(s) means corrections, enhancements, or upgrades to The Vendor's products, services, and equipment within the scope of the City's voice services. Warranty Period Warranty Period means the time period after final acceptance in which the Vendor is responsible for service, maintenance, and updates of products, services, equipment, and documentation through telephone and on-site assistance prior to any Support Agreement taking effect (where provided). The Vendor understands and agrees to the requirements of Section 5 VENDOR: (Print Name) (Title) Date: Page 44 City of Kent -Teleconmiunications Services RFP Addendum 8-21-00 APPENDIX B • CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY: Jim White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding contracts with the City amounting to$10,000, or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and • subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the contract. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Information Technology to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and supplier's subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state, and local laws, policies, and guidelines. Page 45 Seattle Area Network FOCA�L F 0 C A L C O M M U N I C A T I O N S C O R P O R A T I O N - t Service Areas ❑ Everett RTNWA%% ❑ Seattle Art ton El -Tacoma ° End Office Connection ♦ Tandem CO CMYVIW aryav Its O Local CO C•EV,I}JyN1AXF CLKSTWAXA Evers 'd .EVR7WPJf0 TVA ff I CS NSwAK% u i� Ills CSLLKW = A1WlOe Su w ° s dmond r w LKWAX% OTNWA71a uoxe.nx Nw an - Dwall S 'WAG4 a 0CJ NrWAKA. KI land smw bJ smwAu -K Lnw exlcj'dmpp1 sTTL ACA : taeMQWA%A 1 Se ftle y] '-L-SMS WA%A. Carrn,Uon WAO .YUe ^ >e 303 A 'WA07 LVWAGL +_ .ST?LWAE A - CGUNWAS R A01 Fal C •r l W - •WAW Is*&Wah ldon STTUWA61d WWWA01 1 " 10 10 Des MoN1e - QKE Aoe .�.... Kent •�.•� ESMWAO KENTWA01 KENTW IN rat 01 AU f W -968NWA01 'tip 1 •M1 TaCOmat�. IACMWAWVf 1 7TLW SU TT jWALA S. LWAGA T" \ MNAA n•cP " CTACPA -. ACMWAWA. '•;' 1J1(:MWAG a' i MNRWAI'.1 - II LPWACt Y .,S S 1 S I EL TTLWA03 AcslwALF�t�', T • ,.: t";rt 'Ss� y.y.'„ f �GRNMWAGR• N Roy ++ S WAD c Map By Schlosser Geographic Systems,Inc. November 1999 FOCA\L 01999 Focal Communications Corporation E w a � r •� w d e V J � d i LL _r r • w L Q s (f� :1A 7 EOCAIL TM INVOICE . LING ACCOUNT ID: 9 Printed on PAGEledfaper "1 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 J BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 GENERAL BILLING INFORMATION MAILING ADDRESS PRIMARY BILLING CONTACT NAME: ATTN: TITLE: PHONE: Kenmore. WA 98028-0000 FAX: EMAIL: BILLING TERMS BILLING BILLING BILLING PAYMENT PAYMENT LATE PAYMENT ffCLE LANGUAGE CURRENCY CURRENCY TERMS CHARGE l l First English US Dollars US Dollars Net 30 Days 1.5 Percent * Beginning July 1st, Focal Communications has enhanced its billing system to improve the accuracy * of DID number charges. Prior to this enhancement. some DID charges might have been omitted in error from * your invoice. For questions. please contact Customer Care at 1-888-FocalCare. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BILLING ACCOUNT ID BILLING PERIOD INVOICE DATE PAYMENT DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 09/01/00 30 days from date of receipt 1.923.72 To ensure proper credit. please detach and return this portion with your payment. PLEASE REMIT CHECK PAYABLE TO: To avoid a late payment charge. payment must be received by Payment Due Date. FOCAL COMM. OF WASHINGTON 135 S LASALLE ST THANK YOU FOR USING FOCAL- DEPT 2760 • CHICAGO. IL 60674-2760 J PHONE 1ga886.FOZ ALCARE FAX: a 88 93 XFOCAL EMAIL:CUSTOM ERCAREQFOCAL.COM QUESTIONS? Your feedback is important to us. Please stop by vvvvvv.focal.comlcustomercaresurvey.Thanks! 1 /\ TM _ �Ci� L INVOICE .LING ACCOUNT 10: ® Printed on ledfaper NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 INVOICE SUMMARY TAL AMOUNT DUE BEFORE NEW CHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 RVICE CHARGES LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOCAL CALLING USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.63 LONG DISTANCE CALLING USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.55 INTERNATIONAL CALLING USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.85 OTHER SERVICES USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 0.83) TAL SERVICE CHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iCOUNTS LOCAL CALLING USAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14.11) SAL DISCOUNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 14.11) (ES / SURCHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.66 TAL NEW CHARGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IA4FD(E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U E STI 0 N S? PHONE 1.888.zOzALCARE FAX:t a 888.3FGX zOICAL EMAIL:CUSTOM ERCAREQFOCAL.COM TM OCAL INVOICE 8 Printed on Recycled Paper BILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 3 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 LINE CHARGES DETAIL Kerwre - "RVICE ID QUANTITY PRODUCT DESCRIPTION SERVICE DATE/PERIOD AMOUNT 3anf fll 0001 1 T1 INSTALL 08/16/00 500.00 1 T1 DIOD 08/16/00 - 08/31/00 1 T1 DIOD 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 SERVICE ID TOTAL: 11140 1 DIDLBL 09/01/00 15.00 GRAND TOTAL: QUESTIONS? PHONE1 886.FO2ALCARE FAX:t$8883F FOCAL EMAIL: CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM w,,,,stQm < irvPv Thank I TM CA INVOICE 6 Printed on Recycled Paper BILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 4 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 USAGE SUMMARY Kenmore - TOTAL DISCOUNT NET TOTAL CALL CATEGORY # CALLS TOTAL MINUTES CHARGES AMOUNT CHARGES ;G - WA LOCAL CALLING Local Usage - Intrastate 909 2.434 141.13 14.11 127.02 Local 1 1 0.02 0.00 0.02 Extended Local 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regional 908 2.433 141.11 14.11 127.00 Interstate Regional 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local Usage - Interstate 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Extended Local 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regional 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1-terstate Regional 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 is iry Assistance - Local 9 0 4.50 0.00 4.50 SG - LONG DISTANCE Long Distance - Intrastate 8 30.1 1.78 0.00 1.78 Long Distance - Interstate 50 250.3 14.77 0.00 14.77 Directory Assistance - Intrastate LD 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Directory Assistance - Interstate LD 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 SG - INTERNATIONAL LONG DISTANCE Long Distance - INTL 16 41.4 6.85 0.00 6.85 SG - TOLLFREE REWARDS Originating Toll Free (Rebate) 59 332.2 -0.83 0.00 -0.83 TOTAL CHARGES: 154.09 QUESTIONS? PHONE: 11 a86.FOZALCARE FAX:1.8883F FOCAL EMAIL:CUSTOM ERCARE@FOCAL.COM CAI L TM INVOICE IL LING ACCOUNT ID: a Printed on�eptcledeaper NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 CALL SUMMARY Kenmore - NUMBER NUMBER % OF OF OF TOTAL PLAN/CATEGORY ----------- RATE ----------- CALLS MINUTES AMOUNT CHARGE WA LOCAL BASE RATE PLAN 918 2.434.0 $145.62900 86.5 2 Local DA 0.5000 PER CALL 9 0.0 $4.50000 2.6 % Local 0.0150 PER MINUTE 1 1.0 $0.01500 0.0 % Extended Local 0.0150 PER MINUTE 0 0.0 $0.00000 0.0 % Regional 0.0580 PER MINUTE 908 2.433.0 $141.11400 83.9 % Interstate Regional 0.0580 PER MINUTE 0 0.0 $0.00000 0.0 % LD FLAT RATE PLAN f0-0590 58 280.4 $16.54360 9.8 ! Orig LD 0.0590 PER MINUTE (18 SEC) 58 280.4 $16.54360 9.8 % Orig LD DA 0.7500 PER CALL 0 0.0 $0.00000 0.0 % • INTL BASE RATE PLAN 16 41.4 $6.84500 4.0 ! Orig INTL - PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 16 41.4 $6.84500 4.0 % TOLL FREE REWARDS - BASE RATE - $0.0025 59 332.2 40.83050 -0-4 S Orig Tollfree -0.0025 PER MINUTE (18 SEC) 59 332.2 -SO.83050 -0.4 % GRAND TOTAL: 1.051 3.088.0 $168.18710 PHONE: 18886.FOCALCARE FAX: 1gg8893XFOlCAL EMAIL:CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM QUESTIONS? Your feedback is important to us. Please stop by www.focal.com/customercaresurve .Thanks! TM EP 0 C/ L INVOICE qw ® Printed on Recycled Paper BILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 6 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 INTL CALL SUMMARY BY COUNTRY CODE Kermore - COUNTRY CODE COUNTRY DESC ----------- RATE ----------- # OF CALLS TOTAL MINUTES TOTAL AMOUNT BC ABBOTSFORD 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.90 $0.13500 C9 AUSTRALIA 0.2500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.50 $0.12500 AB CALGARY 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 2.10 $0.31500 L8 JORDAN 1.3200 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.50 $0.66000 BC NEWWTMNSTR 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.90 $0.13500 BC PORT MOODY 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.50 $0.07500 ON TORONTO 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 0.90 $0.13500 BC VANCOUVER 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 4 8.30 $1.24500 BC WESTVIEW 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 1 20.20 E3.03000 BC WHITE ROCK 0.1500 PER MINUTE (30 SEC) 4 6.60 $0.99000 r U E S TI O N S? PHONE:11 888z 201 ALCARE FAX:t$$88.3F 22OCAL EMAIL:CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM TM ' C��L INVOICE [CLING ACCOUNT ID: ® Printed on Paledl-Paper NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 CALL SUMMARY BY BILLING NIPBER Kenmore - CALLING NUMBER/CALL CATEGORY # OF CALLS TOTAL MINUTES TOTAL AMOUNT 425.939.8100 1.051 3.088.00 $168.18710 Orig Tollfree 59 332.20 -$0.83050 Orig LD 58 280.40 $16.54360 Orig INTL 16 41.40 $6.84500 Local DA 9 0.00 $4.50000 Local 1 1.00 $0.01500 Regional 908 2,433.00 $141.11400 QUESTIONS? PHONE: 11 886.FOzALCARE FAX: 18888..22OCAL EMAIL: CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM ✓nun fcmrlharb is imnnrtant to nc. Please stnn by www-foral rnm/rustomercaresurvev.Thanks! CAL TM INVOICE LLING ACCOUNT ID: a Printed on ftcclecVaper NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 DISCOUNT REALIZATION DOLLAR THRESHOLD CALCULATION Kenmore - ---------- RATE (INITIAL) --------- ----------- RATE (ADOL) ----------- TOTAL CHARGES APPLY APPLIED TO APPLY APPLIED TO APPLIED TO CALL CATEGORY THRSH CHARGES THRESHOLD THRSH CHARGES THRESHOLD THRESHOLD ,G - WA LOCAL CALLING Local Usage - Intrastate 0.DO 0.00 141.13 141.13 141.13 Local - Y 0.02 0.02 0.02 Extended Local - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regional - Y 141.11 141.11 141.11 Interstate Regional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local Usage - Interstate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 Local - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Extended Local - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,r,gional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Warstate Regional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 ory Assistance - Local Y 4.50 4.50 - 4-50 >G - LONG DISTANCE Long Distance - Intrastate - Y 1.78 1.78 1.78 Long Distance - Interstate - Y 14.77 14.77 14.77 Directory Assistance - Intrastate LD Y 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Directory Assistance - Interstate LD Y 0.00 0.00 - 0-00 ;G - INTERNATIONAL LONG DISTANCE Long Distance - INTL - Y 6.85 6.85 6.85 CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL THRESFK)LD ACHIEVED BY THIS SERVICE LOCATION: 169.03 TOTAL THRESHOLD ACHIEVED: 169.03 QUESTIONS? PHONE 1888888.2CzALCARE FAX:t$88 8.22OCAL EMAIL:CUSTOMERCARE®FOCAL.COM CAL M INVOICE 8 Printed on Recycled Paper ILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 10 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 DISCOUNT REALIZATION CSG - WA LOCAL CALLING WA LOCAL BASE RATE PLAN Kermore - THRESHOLD & DISCOUNT SCHEDULE TOTAL THRESHOLD ACHIEVED: 169.03 ------ THRESHOLD RANGE ------ RATE (INITIAL) RATE (ADDL) FROM TO DISCOUNT DISCOUNT 0 249 10 % 10 2 250 999 20 % 20 % 1.000 24.999 30 % 30 % 25.000 40 % 40 % ---------- RATE (INITIAL) --------- ----------- RATE (ADDL) ----------- TOTAL AVAIL AMOUNT AVAIL AVAIL AMOUNT AVAIL DISCOUNT CATEGORY DSCNT CHARGES FOR DISCOUNT DSCNT CHARGES FOR DISCOUNT AMOU Local Usage - Intrastate 0.00 0.00 141.13 141.12 14.11 Local N 0.02 0.00 0.00 Extended Local N 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regional - Y 141.11 141.12 14.11 Interstate Regional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local Usage - Interstate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Local - N 0.00 0.00 0.00 Extended Local - N 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interstate Regional - Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Directory Assistance - Local N 4.50 0.00 - 0.00 TOTAL DISCOUNT AMOUNT: 14.11 QUESTIONS? PHONE:11 8862FzOzALCARE FAX(,8 88 8.3F 2zOlCAL EMAIL:CUSTOM ERCARE@FOCAL.COM Your feedback is important to us. Please stop by www.focal.com/customercaresurvey.Thanks! �C��L M INVOICE 8 Printed on Rerycled Paper BILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 11 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 DISCOUNT REALIZATION CSG - INTERNATI'JR:.L '-ONG DISTANCE INTL BASE RATE PLAN Kerwre - THRESHOLD & DISCOUNT SCHEDULE TOTAL THRESHOLD ACHIEVED: 169.03 ------ THRESHOLD RANGE ------ RATE (INITIAL) RATE (ADDL) FROM TO DISCOUNT DISCOUNT 0 499 0 z 0 z 500 1.499 5 % 5 % 1.500 4.999 10 % 10 % 5.000 9,999 15 % 15 % 10,000 + 20 % 20 % ------ RATE (INITIAL) --------- ----------- RATE (ADDL) ----------- TOTAL AVAIL AMOUNT AVAIL AVAIL AMOUNT AVAIL DISCOUNT CALL CATEGORY DSCNT CHARGES FOR DISCOUNT DSCNT CHARGES FOR DISCOUNT AMOUNT Long Distance - INTL - Y 6.85 6.85 0.00 TOTAL DISCOUNT AMOUNT: 0.00 QUESTIONS? PHONE 18 88.iOZ ALCARE FAX:8$88..22O'CAL EMAIL:CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM Ye..:.. vy� Th�nLe1 fO CA LTM INVOICE ® Printed on Recycled Paper BILLING ACCOUNT ID: PAGE: 12 NAME: INVOICE NUMBER: 17036 BILLING PERIOD: 09/01/00 - 09/30/00 INVOICE DATE: 09/01/00 TAXES ! SURCHARGES BREAKDOWN Kenmore - JURISDICTION / DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FEDERAL EXCISE TAX 36.05 STATE SALES TAX 110.77 COUNTY SALES TAX 28.97 WA STATE 911 SURCHARGE 9.60 WA TRS(FUNDS FED. ADA REORMNT) 7.20 WA TELEPHONE ASSISTANCE PROG. 6.24 KING CO. 911 SURCHARGE 16.80 WA STATE B&O TAX 8.03 GRAND TOTAL: 223.66 QUESTIONS? PHONE: 11 a86.FOZALCARE FAX: 1$88..22OCAL EMAIL:CUSTOMERCARE@FOCAL.COM Your feedback is important to us. Please stop by www.focal.com/customercaresurve .Thanks! r G1.can/ Foc t in tfle • • _ Our fletwork Combining innovative thinking, comprehensive coverage and the most reliable service available, Focal provides the best communications choice yet for Seattle-area businesses. Everett Tandem [HOW IT WORKS] We exchange telephone traffic with - the local network through multiple LEC central Office access tandems,and we connect LEC Customer to multiple end offices to avoid network congestion. Focal DMS-5D0- K Focal Cusco tevue Seattle ndem Tandem Seattle Seattle 03 Tandem q a Olympia TacomaTandem Tandem Focal. Smarter is as smarter does. [MULTIPLE FIBER RING ARCHITECTURE] Our network Our teams are highly experienced in the communications is designed on the theme of diversity, providing service over industry,combining expertise,energy and a fresh perspective multiple SONET rings for greater network protection to provide you with a creative, reliable telecommunications while utilizing different fiber providers for further redundancy. alternative. [TANDEM DIVERSITY] Unlike other communications We use only superior support technologies, and our providers whose central office subtends to a single tandem, experienced and empowered customer service representatives we designed our network to subtend to multiple tandems are available to you 24 hours a day.We also offer simple, within a single LATA.This unique architecture not only reliable turn-up and products designed with your business ensures you'll receive the highest rate of completed calls in mind. At Focal, our goal is your complete satisfaction. possible at any time, it also fully utilizes the look ahead features of Signaling System 7 (SS7). FOC�LL Local without limits" m2000 Focal Communications Corporation I-FOC-30OIKSEA tr efh; ' cal.can • • • e Disaster • Losing important calls to a disabled Ti can be more than an inconvenience, it can l be expensive. Protect yourself against unpredictable service interruptions with our Focal Fail-Safe" routing application. [HOW IT WORKS] With Fait-Safe,Focal will pre-program our DMS switch to reroute incoming calls to an alternative number or at Fail-safe user location.Fail-Safe is an effective tool to help maintain customer satisfaction and provide additional ois a I ro nrrai security for mission-critical inbound applications. Re-originated(all ` Public Telephone Network Caber Focal DM$-500' Alternate Destination Focal. Your success is safe with us. • Focal Fail-Safe is an inbound routing application that allows all inbound calls to your Focal T1/PRI to be rerouted to another location in case of a failed circuit, disabled PBX, or overflow scenario. Fail-Safe provides yet another layer of network redundancy,protecting against unforeseen service interruptions that can result in lost business and lost revenue. [MISSION-CRITICAL APPLICATIONS] With the ability [PEAK OVERFLOW SCENARIOS] Fail-Safe can also help to reroute calls to other call centers regardless of their you optimize your call answering resources by overflowing location, Focal can support virtually any inbound,mission inbound calls to other locations. For example,during peak critical application. Fail-Safe provides an invaluable hours a call center in the Eastern Time Zone can overflow security mechanism that helps maintain the highest level calls to a call center in another time zone still operating in of customer service availability. off-peak hours,such as one in the Pacific Time Zone. [ADDITIONAL LAYER OF NETWORK REDUNDANCY] [MINIMIZE LOST SALES] Inbound calls represent Redundancy and diversity are the themes behind Focal's dollars for sales centers,and lost calls mean business lost network—diverse routes on diverse carriers to diverse forever.With a valuable safeguard like Fail Safe,you can points of interconnection. Fail-Safe provides yet another minimize the possibility of lost business resulting from layer of diversity. Focal's ability to route calls to alternate call blockage due to a failed PBX,T1, or poorly sized networks in the name of providing excellent service to trunk groups. Fail-Safe reduces the potential for lost sales our customers makes Fail-Safe a unique, one-of-a-kind and affords you peace of mind. offering that truly sets Focal apart. FOC/\L Service subject to availability.Certain other restrictions may apply. DMS-500 is a trademark of None[Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company.Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focal.com. ®2000 Focal Communications Corporation I-SAFE-50040K Disaster . P e e , Ci1.CMD Relliablitity and Survivability ` It's an unpredictable world. That's why Focal offers the utmost in disaster protection by employing a host of technical safeguards — safeguards designed to protect your business and ensure continued high-quality service during times of uncertainty. Focal. Reliable by design. Nothing is as important as reliable service.Accordingly,we offer several reassurances in the form of network and facilities enhancements. Because when it comes to protecting your business, there's no such thing as being too prepared. [MULTIPLE FIBER RING ARCHITECTURE] The first line [CENTRAL SWITCH ENGINEERING] The DMS-500 of defense? Our entire network. Focal diversifies and central office switch has been engineered to prevent any distributes traffic to minimize the effects of a facilities one single point of failure within the switch itself. CPU failure. We provide service over multiple SONET rings is redundant. Parritionable subsections allow for customer for additional layers of network protection, utilizing trunking and transport facilities to be provisioned in multiple fiber providers for further redundancy. separate sections of the switch. Our grade of service provides a 1:1 ratio of customer to Focal switching activity. [CENTRAL OFFICE SURVIVABILITY] Our central offices are organized and equipped with disaster protection in [TANDEM DIVERSITY] Unlike other communications mind. We employ the state-of-the-art Nortel DMS-500T" providers whose central office subtends to a single tandem, telephone switching platform which features distributed we designed our network to subtend to multiple tandems architecture that allows customer traffic to migrate across within a single LATH.This unique architecture not only multiple equipment bays, thereby protecting against CPU ensures you'll receive the highest rate of completed calls failure.Additionally, our central office is served by multiple possible at any time, it also fully utilizes the look ahead power grids to protect against failures from the electric features of Signaling System 7 (SS7). utility. Finally,we are supported by our own battery backup and generator power for yet another level of protection. [FOCAL FAIL-SAFE,-] As an additional layer of network safety, Focal Fail-Safes"can protect customers in the event [DISASTER RECOVERY SERVICES] Focal has contracted of a down circuit or PBX. Fail-Safe will re-route your with Nortel for ETAS(Emergency Technical Assistance and incoming calls to predetermined facilities at another location. Services)for disaster recovery services.ETAS provides technical Used for mission-critical inbound applications or unexpected and hardware assistance in the event of a switching failure, call volumes, Focal Fail-Safe delivers when you need it most. as well as 24/7 remote monitoring of system performance. rFO CA\L DMS-500 is a trademark of Nortel Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company. Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focat.com. 02000 Focal communications corporation I-DSP-50040K Kc -Aim. SM 1.001 Focat OverTime _ .,,,• High Traffic Completion • High long distance traffic volume during peak calling hours requires a dependable overflow option. Protect your network against lost calls and lost revenue with our Focal OverTimesm service. HOW IT WORKS If your network is overloaded, Focal diverts all calls over our Long Distance long distance network,allowing Direct A cess Links `' them to go through as usual. 8lI ST Focal DMS-500" txt POP t s s g• i /t 1 s 1 A yh FDcai Owed Multi-Dwelling Unit �\1 Access Links with Access Node toc focal Long Distance Building with PBX Focal. Never lose a call. With Focal OverTime,all long distance overflow traffic is completed over Focal's long distance network,so you and your customers can be sure their calls will get through.And Focal OverTime provides optimal trunking by reducing incremental transport costs to support peak traffic loads.Your calls will not only be completed efficiently, they'll be completed affordably as well. Contact Focal today to learn more about how Focal OverTime can help you: > Enhance network redundancy. > Minimize dependency on long distance carriers. > Increase your call completion rates. > Integrate local and long distance billing. > Deliver attractive profit margins. > Provide easy call detail record retrieval. • FOCAL L DMS-500 is a trademark of Norte[Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched Local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company.Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focal.com. m2000 Focal Communications Corporation I-OVER-50040K cl Virtuat 1 .r A� foreign Exchange Service • Focal Virtual Exchange" service lets customers, vendors and remote offices reach you from anywhere within the LATA by using a local number — simplifying your communications, reducing your costs and expanding your presence while providing enhanced service to your customers. IOV"b r0 Remote Customer/Vendor/Office LEC Central Office Focal DMS-500' [HOW IT WORKS] Virtual Exchange routes inbound-only _ foreign exchange numbers through Focal's central switching platform, then on to your location over a access Tandem multi-purpose TI. Your Business Focal. Expand your presence. As a replacement for traditional foreign exchange(FX) service, Focal Virtual Exchange'"' (VX) allows you to provide customersi vendors and associates with a local number to contact you. Providing your business a greater local presence and improved customer care. All you have to do is choose the available rate centers you want local numbers in. [IMPROVE YOUR BOTTOM LINE] Virtual Exchange can including DID and PRI services. And since all of your also be used to improve your bottom line by reducing telephone numbers can terminate on the same access costs. Not only can it help replace costly local toll calling facility, your local network is easier to optimize and between company locations,it can also eliminate the need control—maximizing your network costs. for local 800 calling applications and reduce access costs. Virtual Exchange can be added to existing Focal service [SOLUTIONS MADE SIMPLE] Focal designs all of its and uses fixed monthly pricing to eliminate the guess products on the needs of our customers.Virtual Exchange work associated with other usage-based offerings. can be added to any of our inbound local calling products FOC/\� Service subject to availability.Certain other restrictions may apply. DMS-500 is a trademark of Norte[Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company. Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focat.com. oz000 Focal Communications Corporation I-vx-50040K ,. Office' jr A Virtuat A Telecommuting Service Focal's Virtual Office'" service provides a revolutionary way to significantly reduce work-at-home costs and maximize efficiency. Telecommuter dials Access Tandem (NPA)Nxx-5678(local call) Your Business 7elemmmuler dials (NPA)Nxx-1234(local call) LEC Central Office LEC Central Office Focal DMS•500'" [HOW 1T WORKS] Your employee dials a local Focal telephone number using their residential telephone service.The Access Tandem local company routes the call to Focal's office.Focal routes the call over the DID TS setup between • Focal's switch and your server. ,...1 Focal. A better way to work. Virtual Office"' is an inbound application designed for Focal Virtual Office eliminates toll-free and long distance any business whose employees telecommute.With more charges by giving your business local telephone numbers employees than ever working from home, Focal's Virtual throughout the service area.Your employees simply pay Office provides a timely way to significantly reduce work- for a local call on their residential phone bill.All calls are at-home costs for your company. Previously, allowing routed through Focal's switch and delivered via your Focal employees to telecommute meant soaring costs from giving Inbound TI service. Plus, by using our Focal Finder" employees access to voicemail or office servers via toll-free service, the telecommuter is certain to know which DID numbers, long distance calls or IntraLATA calls. number is closest to them. FOCLL -� Local without limits'" DMS-500 is a trademark of Norte[Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company.Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focat.com. 02000 Focal Communications Corporation 140F.30040K Tottawftee Rewards" 'may'►. Invoice Credit How can placing outbound toll-free calls actually bring money back to your company? By using Focal Toll-Free Rewards" service. IKt Focal Customer Focal DMS-500' HOW IT WORKS Simply replace or augment your credit for every minute of outbound existing outbound lines with a toll-free traffic your business makes Focal TI.Then,with Toll-Free over your It. Rewards,you'll receive an invoice Focal. The rewards of innovative thinking. Available to all Focal DOD TI and Channelized DIOD customers,Toll-Free Rewards'" makes the toll-free numbers you already use to reach vendors, customer service lines and paging services even more attractive by giving you an invoice credit for every minute of outbound 800 traffic sent over your Focal TI. Plus,with our competitive T1 rates, you may even save money by replacing an existing T1 with a Focal T1. Not only will you earn credits by sending your outbound toll-free traffic over your Focal TI, it also provides backup for your telephone traffic. If your primary carrier suffers an emergency or outage you can still make and receive calls over your Focal Ti. Toll-Free Rewards also offers other advantages: > Credits applied to your invoice on a monthly basis. > Unique service. Not offered by most CLECs/ILECs. > No risk.Toll-Free Rewards will not jeopardize > Increased credit when you choose one of Focal's any existing contract you have with ILECs. local calling plans for your outbound traffic. > Redundancy. Provides you with an additional connection to PSTN. Local without limits" DMS-500 is a trademark of None(Networks. Focal was created to provide sophisticated telecommunications users with facilities-based switched local telephone service.Our employees combine expertise, energy and a fresh perspective to provide you with a creative alternative to the incumbent local telephone company. Please call 877-ASK-FOCAL for more information on this and other Focal products,or visit our website at www.focal.com. C2000 Focal Communications Corporation I-REB-30040K n NO Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 eA Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 2001 KENT REPORTER CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the 2001 Kent Reporter contract for publication and distribution of the City' s community newsletter, Kent Connections . r 3 . EXHIBITS : Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H Agreement The CITY OF KENT and the KENT REPORTER agree to the following: —The City of Kent agrees to purchase display advertising in the Kent Reporter for the purpose of producing a -ity newsletter (Kent Connections) for the citizens of Kent, at a minimum frequency of once each month; and, the Kent Reporter agrees to publish and distribute at least one edition each month during the period: The term of the agreement shall cover the Kent Reporter issues of January 2001 through December 2001. Either party may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice. The City of Kent agrees to purchase from the Kent Reporter one full page (equivalent to 80 column inches) at a monthly rate of 51,360. This price will include printing in black ink plus one extra spot color, the color to be determined by the Kent Reporter, in coordination with the City of Kent. Additional colors may be purchased for use in the ad at a cost of 5150 per color, per issue. The page shall be placed in the centerfold of the editions in which the City newsletter appears, unless an alternate location is agreed to by both the City of Kent and the Kent Reporter. The City of Kent will have full control over the name, editorial content, and layout of the City newsletter, and will provide the Kent Reporter with electronic copy of the newsletter for production purposes. In each edition of the Kent Reporter that includes the City newsletter, the Kent Reporter will provide the City of Kent with a front page teaser indicating to the community that the City newsletter is included inside the newspaper. The City of Kent and the Kent Reporter will mutually review and determine postal carrier routes for the ...publication's delivery. This review shall ensure that the entire incorporated boundary of the City of Kent -ceives the publication. These codes may be updated monthly as needed to accommodate changes in the City's incorporated boundaries. The City of Kent will provide the Kent Reporter with pictures that are to be included in the City newsletter and the Kent Reporter will provide any scanning of half tones that may be needed. The Kent Reporter agrees to direct mail 28,000 copies of the Kent Reporter to residents within the Kent city limits. Additional copies will be produced and mailed at a marginal cost of S210 per 1,000 copies. Five- hundred additional copies will be delivered to the City of Kent for the City's use at no extra cost. The Kent Reporter also agrees to provide the City of Kent with certification from the post office verifying the number of copies mailed when requested by city officials. City of Kent Kent Reporter 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032-5895 15 S Grady Way., Renton, WA 98055 Mayor Jim White, City of Kent Denis W. Law, Puget Sound Publishing DBA Kent Reporter Date Date Attest: Kent City Clerk Approved as to legal form: Roger Lubovich, Ciry Attorney, City of Kent Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTING CONTRACT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the Intergovernmental affairs consulting contract for the period of January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 with Doug Levy for an amount not to exceed $45, 000 . 3 . EXHIBITS : Contract 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 61 CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND DOUG LEVY, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City"), and Doug Levy, doing business at 7210 NE 147th Place, Kenmore, Washington 98028 (hereinafter the "Consultant"). RECITALS WHEREAS the City desires that the Consultant perform services necessary to provide lobbyist and intergovemmental relations consultation and advice to the City, and WHEREAS the Consultant agrees to perform these services, which are described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference, commencing on the effective date of this agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: I. Description of Work Consultant shall perform all lobbying and intergovernmental relations consultation work as described in Exhibit A. Consultant further represents that the services furnished under this agreement will be performed within strict compliance of all federal and state laws regulating Consultant's services and in accordance with generally accepted professional practices in effect at the time these services are performed. II. Payment A. The City shall pay the Consultant, based on time, an amount not to exceed $3,274.99 per month plus expenses. Expenses eligible for reimbursement include mileage, lodging and meals, Parking and long-distance phone calls made on behalf of the City. Expenses, to the extent possible, shall be shared among the Consultant's clients, with mileage reimbursed at S.325 per mile. Expenses submitted for payment shall be approved by the City prior to payment. Total expenditures under the contract shall not exceed S45,000 for consulting services and expenses. This is the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement for the services described in Exhibit A and shall not be exceeded without the prior written authorization of the City in the form of a negotiated and executed Consult.doc 1 November 14,2000 supplemental agreement. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, the City reserves the right to direct the Consultant's compensated services under the time frame set forth in Section IV herein before reaching the maximum amount. B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City after such services have been performed. The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify the Consultant of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion. III. Relationship of Parties The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created by this Agreement. As Consultant is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which encompasses the specific service provided to the City, the City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work. IV. Duration of Work The Consultant's work will begin on January 1, 2001. The parties agree that the work will continue through December 31, 2001. V. Place of Work The Consultant shall perform the work authorized under this Agreement at its offices in Kenmore and Olympia, Washington. Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at the City's offices at 220 4' Avenue South, Kent, Washington, or at locations mutually agreed upon by the parties. VI. Termination A. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, upon giving the non- terminating party at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior written notice of termination. B. Excusable Delays. The right of Consultant to proceed shall not be terminated nor shall Consultant be charged with liquidated damages for any delays in the completion of the work due to causes not reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time of the execution of the Agreement that are beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant, including, but not restricted to, acts of God, fires, floods, strikes, or weather T. of unusual severity. Consult.doc 2 November 14,2000 C. Rights Upon Termination. In the event of termination, the City shall pay for all services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination, the City may take possession of all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to the Consultant. VII. Discrimination In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub- contract hereunder, the Consultant, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such Consultant or sub-contractor shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. VIII. Indemnification Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the Consultant's performance of this Agreement, except for that portion of the injuries and damages caused by the City's negligence. The City's inspection or acceptance of any of Consultant's work when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. IX. Insurance The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-contractors, providing adequate proof of insurance coverage outlined below to the City, prior to commencing work under this contract. Consult.doc 3 November 14, 2000 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $100,000/$300,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 2. Excess Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 limit per occurrence and aggregate. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Consultant. The City shall be given thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. X. Exchange of Information The City warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Consultant for the purpose of completion of the work under this Agreement. The parties agree that the Consultant will notify the City of any inaccuracies in the information provided by the City as may be discovered in the process of performing the work, and that the City is entitled to rely upon any information supplied by the Consultant which results as a product of this Agreement. XI. Ownership and Use of Records and Documents All data, documents and files created by Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's offices in Kenmore and Olympia, Washington. Consultant shall make such data, documents, and files available to the City upon its request at all reasonable times for the purpose of editing, modifying and updating as necessary until such time as the City is capable of storing such information in the City's offices. Duplicate copies of this information shall be provided to the City upon its request, and at reasonable cost. XII. Recyclable Materials Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Kent City Code, the City requires its contractors and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price preference may be available for any designated recycled product. ,III. City's Right of Inspection Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, Consult.doc 4 November 14,2000 state, and municipal laws, rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of such operations. XIV. Consultant to Maintain Records to Support Independent Contractor Status On the effective date of this Agreement (or shortly thereafter), Consultant shall: A. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of business Consultant conducts; B. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other necessary state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers, register to receive a unified business identifier number from the State of Washington; and C. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and expenses of Consultant's business, all as described in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 51.08.195, as required to show that the services performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties which is subject to RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance. XVI. Non-Waiver of Breach The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of said covenants, agreements or options, and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. XVII. Resolution of Disputes and Governing Law Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the City, and the City shall determine the term or provision's true intent or meaning. The City shall also decide all questions which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of the performance hereunder. If any dispute arises between the City and Consultant under any of the provisions of this Agreement which cannot be resolved by the City's determination in a reasonable time, or if Consultant does not agree with the City's decision on the disputed matter, jurisdiction of any resulting litigation shall be filed in King County Superior Court, King County, Washington. Consult.doc 5 November 14,2000 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from the parties' performance of this Agreement, each party shall be responsible to pay all its legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing such claim or lawsuit; provided, however, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the City's right to indemnification under Section VHI of this agreement. XVIII. Written Notice All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses listed on the signature page of the agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice hereunder shall become effective upon the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing. XIX. Assignment Any assignment of this Agreement by the Consultant without the written consent of the City shall be void. If the City shall give its consent to any assignment, the terms of this agreement shall continue in full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without the City's consent. XX. Modification No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant. Y.M. Entire Agreement The written provisions and terms of this Agreement, together with any Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part of or altering in any manner this Agreement. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with any language contained in this Agreement, the terns of this Agreement shall prevail. Consult.doc 6 November 14,2000 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties below have executed this Agreement. DOUG LEVY THE CITY OF KENT By Its DATE: DATE: Consult.doc 7 November 14,2000 Notices to be sent to: Notices to be sent to: Doug Levy Dena Laurent Government Affairs Manager The City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 (253) 856-5707/fax (253) 856-6700 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Kent City Attorney City Clerk C:onsult.doc 8 November 14,2000 Exhibit A SCOPE OF WORK Scope of Work The following outlines the scope of work under this contract. Specific workplans shall be developed mutually and reviewed on a quarterly basis. ✓ Assist with issue identification and meetings with Kent legislators prior to the Legislative Session ✓ Continue to monitor and identify problems and opportunities for Kent on issues under consideration by various state legislative bodies including groups meeting on transportation, fiscal resources, endangered species listings, and other state agency activities ✓ Monitor and report legislation of concern to Kent during the Legislative Session, working with the Mayor's Office to provide regular status reports and to advocate for Kent on relevant issues ✓ Assist with issue identification, opportunities for Kent and advocacy efforts with Kent's federal representatives ✓ Assist with issue identification, opportunities for Kent and advocacy efforts with Kent's regional representatives ✓ Assist with pursuit of funding for Kent projects, particularly at the state and federal levels Reporting and Communication The Consultant shall communicate weekly with designated staff regarding work under the contract. Monthly summaries of work completed shall be appended to invoices for payment. S:\PUBLICWDMIN\LAURENTI Doug'sContractdrl.REV'D.11.14.00.doc Consult.doc 9 November 14,2000 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITE OFF - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their November 21, 2000 meeting, authorization to approve the write-off for 1999/2000 past due accounts receivables of $52 , 902 . 97 . The State Auditor recommends that we write off uncollectable accounts over one year old. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Customer Service Manager describing the write-offs in detail and memo from Finance Director Miller 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff , Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J • KENT Ww5HINGTON DATE: November 8, 2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Operations Committee Director `\ Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller) Fax: 253-856-6255 SUBJECT: COUNCIL APPROVED WRITE-OFFS 220 Fourth Ave. S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 The State Auditor recommends that we write off uncollectable accounts over one year old. This year the write-off request is for 1999 and 2000 as no write-offs were done in 1999 due to the focus on Y2K issues. The write-off request for 1999/2000 is $52,902.97. The total Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable, Subsidiary Ledger as of 9/3/00 is $3,351,429; the write-offs are 1.4% of the total receivables to date. Attached is a memo from Tom Vetsch, Customer Service Manager, describing the write-offs in detail. We continue to follow the city's Collection Process with the additional step of sending out monthly statements as our new Accounts Receivable system now makes this possible. This has helped keep the accounts more up-to-date and current. COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the write-off for 1999/2000 past due accounts receivables of$52,902.97. To: May Miller From: Tom Vetsch Date: October 31,2000 Subject: Council Approved Write-offs The Council approved write-off request for this year is a combination of 1999 and 2000. There were no write-offs done in 1994 due to the focus on Y2K issues. Total Write-off Request for year 2000: $ 52,902.97 I. Traffic Accidents that damage City property: 7,343.31 (14%) II. City Property Rentals Uncollected: 5,435.50 (10%) III. Legal Department Recommendations: 26,043.39 (49%) IV. A/RMiscellaneous: 9,211.52 (18%) V. LID Write-offs recommended by the Legal Dept: 4,869.25 (9%) Section I: Involves traffic accidents or related damages to City property. The majority of these collections involve individuals without insurance. After extensive efforts are made to collect monies,these are finally determined to be part of the 2000 write-off process. Section II: Rent not paid by individuals that have moved out of the state and leaving no forward address. Some involve companies that have filed bankruptcy and very little opportunity for recovery. Due to the time and cost involved in additional staff expense these are determined to be part of the write-off process. Section III: These are amounts recommended by the Legal department after all efforts have been made to collect such funds. Section IV:Are miscellaneous amounts within various departments that are to be recommended as unable to be collected. Additional expense would not necessarily bring additional recoveries. Various efforts have been used to assist in collecting these funds for the past three years. Section V: LID write-off amounts recommended by the Legal department in relationship to the overall LID processing. Penalties and interest due to ownership discrepancies and good faith payments of incorrect assessments were to be waived. The total Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable, Subsidiary Ledger as of 9/30/00 is$3,351,429.00 The write-offs for 1999/2000 are 1.4%of the total receivables to date. The attached chart provides Council with history of A/R write-offs from 1992 to 2000. We continue to follow the City's Collection Process(attached) with the exception that an additional step has been added. Due to the ability of the new Accounts Receivable system currently in place,monthly statements are mailed out. This has helped keep the accounts more up to date and accounts current. In conclusion, the total write-offs for 2000 are S 52,902.97. If you need additional information,please let me know. Thank you. Cc: Mariane Ely Patty Roseto i' Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CHANGE ACCOUNT INCREASE ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their November 21, 2000 meeting, adoption of Ordinance No. amending Section 3 . 41 . 020 of the Kent City Code to increase the Change Account from $3 , 500 to $6, 000 . This will cover the increase provided the golf course when the City assumed management of the 18-hole tournament and cashier responsibility at the golf complex. This will also allow some room for future department needs . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and memo from Finance Director Miller 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6K • KENT WASHINGTON DATE: November 13, 2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Operations Committee Director Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller Fax: 253-856-6255 220 Fourth Ave. S. SUBJECT: Increasing Change Account Kent,WA 98032-5895 Before year end each year we audit the status of our Petty Cash and Change Account funds to update the responsible department, amounts authorized,and potential future needs. This year's audit determined that the Petty Cash fund authority at$3,300 is sufficient to meet the city's needs. We are recommending that the Change Account authority, Section 3.41.020 of the Kent City Code, be increased by $2,500 (from $3,500 to $6,000). This will cover the increase we provided the golf course when we assumed management of the 18- hole tournament and cashier responsibility at the golf complex. This will also allow some room for future department needs. COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize amending Section 3,41.020 of the Kent City Code to increase the Change Account from $3.500 to $6,000. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending section 3.41.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Change Account," by increasing the maximum account balance from $3,500 to $6,000. I I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 3.41.020 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Change I Account," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 3.41.020, Change account. A. Created. There is hereby established in the office of the finance director a special account to be known as the change account. B. Amount and authorization. The amount of the change account shall be thfee thousand fi„e hundred six thousand dollars ($ -,0 6,000). The finance director is hereby authorized to establish and administer the account. SECTION 2. — Severabilitv. If any one or more section, subsections, or i 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. 1 Change Account-Increase _ SECTION 3. — Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2000. APPROVED: day of 2000. PUBLISHED: day of 2000. 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 Mayoi of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. it (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P C,,ii'Ordimnce ChinecAccownincreue-:000Joc I' I 2 Change Account-Increase Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor ' s reappoint- ment of Brad Bell and Perry Raak to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new appointments will continue until 1/1/2004 . 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 . 6L MEMORANDUM TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2000 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have reappointed Brad Bell and Perry Raak to continue serving as members of the Kent Human Services Commission. Their new appointments will continue until l/1/04. I submit this for your confirmation. jb r Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC ACCESS STUDIO - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to finalize and execute an agreement with AT&T to complete the portion of our Cable Franchise requiring AT&T to "provide, maintain and operate a public access studio" and to authorize a reasonable extension of that franchise obligation in order to complete all the steps required by the agreement . 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations 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 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM • Date: November 30, 2000 KENT W.e"'"°'°" To: Council Operations Committee Cc: Brent McFall, Director of Operations Marty Mulholland, Information Technology Manager Tom Brubaker, Deputy City Attorney Ref: Public Access Studio Authorization From: Dea Drake, Multimedia Manager Request Request to authorize Mayor White to enter into an agreement with AT&T to complete the portion of our Cable Franchise requiring AT&T to "provide, maintain and operate a public access studio" and to authorize a reasonable extension of that franchise obligation in order to complete all the steps required by the agreement. Background information The City of Kent, in conjunction with five regional cities, has been negotiating with AT&T for a Regional Public Access Facility as required in our Cable Franchise Agreement. AT&T had been granted an extension until 1-1-2001 to fulfill this obligation We have been working "fast and furious" in order to identify the best mechanisms to put a Public Access Facility into place. The goal, as you may recall, was to create a community facility, something we can all be proud of, which will provide community programming on a regional basis. We are pleased that we have educational partners in this effort, which are the Renton School District and Renton Vocational Technical College. An additional objective included the design and analysis of appropriate levels of operations dollars, oversight mechanisms, and liability controls to ensure a quality entity over time. We have reached a tentative agreement with AT&T, with a few final details yet to be determined. Their offer is to buy out this obligation by providing $1,060,000 for capital facilities and equipment, and $2,641,942.79 as operating money for ten years. These combine to just over 3.7 million dollars, a remarkable change from their original proposal of $200,000. AT&T would give this money to a nonprofit organization, which is currently in the process of being formed for the purpose of operating this public access studio. The nonprofit has been approved by the State of Washington, but still requires approval by the IRS. U:WY Documents\Cable\SCPAVAOperatronsrequestl2_5 00-doc 1 of 4 The Cities participating with us include Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, Sea Tac, and Burien. We are excited about the prospect of having a regional Community Access Facility. We will be available to answer questions and provide further detail in our presentation to the Operations Committee. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN (PART-TIME) STATUS CHANGE - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their December 5, 2000 meeting, authorization to change the status of a part-time position in the Finance Department from "Part-Time" to "Regular Part-Time" (at 60% of AF25 salary scale) . This change is requested to be in compliance with the AFSCME union contract . There is no cost impact to the 2000 or 2001 budget . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6N 400 KENT WASH IN OTOM DATE: November 29, 2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Operations Committee Director r Phone: 253856-5260 FROM: May Miller Fax:253-856-6255 SUBJECT: Finance Dept. Accounting Technician (Part-time) 220 Fourth Ave. S. Status Change Kent,WA 98032-5895 Authorization is requested to change the status of a part-time position in the Finance Department from "Part-Time"to"Regular Part-Time'(at 60%of AF25 salary scale). This change is requested to be in compliance with the AFSCME union contract. There is no cost impact to the 2000 or 2001 budget It will change the FTE count where only FT and RPT employees are authorizedand counted in the budget. This change will provide medical and retirement as well as some accrual of vacation, sick leave, and other accruals but can be covered in total by transferring of part- time budget allocations. The dollar affect for December 2000 is$2,894 and the 2001 total of$32,380 will be covered by the transfer of already existing part-time budget. COUNCIL ACTION Authorize changing the status of a part-time employee in Finance to a regular part- time Accounting Technician position at 60%of full time salary level AF25 and the transfer of the budget from part-time to regular part-time. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: 2000 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT ORDINANCE - ADOPT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their December 5 , 2000 meeting, adoption of Ordinance No. for adjustments made between July 31, 2000 and December 31, 2000 totaling $67, 284 , 844 and authorizing a line of credit in an amount not to exceed $200, 000 to cover housing and community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County and further authorizing the second year of a three-year short-term loan not to exceed $460 , 000 from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex to cover winter and spring expenditures, with interest to be paid at the state pool rate . 3 . EXHIBITS : Memo from Finance Director Miller 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No . 60 �^ KENT WASHINGTON DATE: December 5, 2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Operations Committee (� Director \ leo"' Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller 'tV� Fax: 253-856-6255 SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments between 220 Fourth Ave. S. July 31,2000 and December 31,2000 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Authorization is requested to approve the gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling $67,284,844 for budget adjustments made between July 31,2000 and December 31, 2000. The net amount excluding transfers is $38,444,041.This ordinance is primarily a housekeeping adjustment, consolidating individual budget items into one adjusting ordinance. Please note that $8,087,682 has been previously approved by Council. The balance of $55,626,340 was approved by Council this year as reflected in the Council minutes and was for the 2000 LTGO Bond Issue and refunding, plus the associated transfer out, which doubled the amount. This amount also includes$12,900,000 anticipated to be approved 12-12-2000 for the Urban Center(Borden-Burlington) Purchase. If this is not approved this amount will be deleted. The difference of$3,570,814 that was not previously approved by Council needs to be approved to be in compliance with the State Auditor's requirements. Some of the amount not previously approved are project related, but some are for Debt Service for the City's use of space at the Centennial, increases in the Self Insurance Funds,plus a transfer of excess LID Guarantee Funds to the CIP Fund and other miscellaneous adjustments as outline below: • $226,872 for Parks Capital Projects from the 2"d Quarter%of REET. • $226,872 Capital Improvement portion of 2"d Quarter REET Funds for Parks Capital Projects. • $179,687 Golf Remodel and Start up Costs using$65,000 unbudgeted Revenues plus $1 14,687 Golf Fund Balance. • $300,000 for CIP Fund to cover debt service costs on additional space the City has occupied in the Centennial Building. 111 $150,000 Transfer from CIP Fund to Facility Fund to cover their balance. Operations Committee -2- December 5, 2000 • $812,715 to adjust Health Insurance Fund to expected claims amount. This is covered with some Interest Income,Employee Share Revenue and the Health Insurance Fund Balance. • $344,983 to adjust Worker Compensation Budget to expected claims amount. Cover this budget with a reallocation of the Liability rates to the Workers Compensation Fund • $436,135, book Liability claims expected,but not yet reported per actuarial study. • $400,000 transfer excess balance in Liability Insurance Fund to cover increased Worker's Compensation Claims. • $793,550 transfer of excess of the required 10% LID Guarantee Funds to CIP Fund for General Fund type one-time only expenditures. • $(300,000)Adjust debt transfer Facilities Fund. • Staff status changes for Accounting Technical from part-time to Regular part-time and to increase a Parks Capital Project FTE from .75 to 1.0. This was covered by existing budgets and requires no additional cost. The attached summary shows the carryover budgets by fund,the 2000 budget adopted by Ordinance No. 3499 and 3526 and the 2000 adjustments from July 31 to December 31,2000. The following pages show a detailed listing of these adjustments by fund, including council authorization dates for the amounts previously approved. In addition to the budget adjustments,the annual line of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000 is needed for housing and community development funds to cover year-end expenditures until King County reimburses the amount. Additionally, the second year of the short-term three year loan established in the 1999 budget from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex in an amount not to exceed $460,000.00 to cover winter and spring expenditures is hereby confirmed and continued. Interest will be paid at the state pool rate. COUNCIL ACTION Approve the technical budget adjustment ordinance for adjustments made between July 31, 2000 and December 31, 2000 totaling$67,284,844. Approve a line of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to cover housing and community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County. Confirm and continue year two of the three year loan from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex in an amount not to exceed $460,000.00 to cover winter and spring expenditures with interest to be paid at state pool rate. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, amending the 2000 Budget for adjustments made between July 31, 2000, and December 31,2000, and authorizing a line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) to cover year-end expenditures and further authorizing the second year of the short-term loan from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex to cover winter and spring operating expenditures. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i SECTION 1. The 2000 City budget is hereby amended to include budget fund adjustments as summarized and set forth in Exhibit"A,"which is incorporated in this ordinance by reference as if fully set forth herein. I SECTION 2. There is hereby established, as part of the 2000 budget, a line of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) in an amount not to exceed $200,000.00. The funds may only be used as needed. i SECTION 3. The second year of the short-tetra 3 year loan established in I the 1999 budget from the Equipment Rental Fund to the Riverbend Golf Complex in an amount not to exceed $460,000.00 to cover winter and spring expenditures is hereby confirmed and continued. Interest will be paid at the state pool rate. 1 2000-Budget Adjustmen SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, sentence,clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. SECTION S. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5)days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: I I I ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 12000. I APPROVED: day of 2000. I PUBLISHED: day of 12000. i 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 2 2000-Budget Adjustmen City of Kent Budget Adjustment Ordinance Adjustments through December 31, 2000 Additional Appropriations Exhibit A Adjustment Adjustment Carryover Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Total Fund Budget #3499 #3526 Budget 001 General Fund 56,950,156 324,592 341,444 57,616,192 110 Street Fund 4,319,870 1,235,107 (651,539) 4,903,438 130 Lodging Tax Fund 135,000 5,000 6,000 146,000 140 Youth/Teen Programs 687,832 687,832 150 Capital Improvement 7,048,262 427,817 883,761 8,359,840 160 Criminal Justice 2,201,891 2,602,851 707,768 229,232 5,741,742 170 Environmental Mitigation 3,000 449,593 160,962 613,555 180 Housing 8 Community Development 613,443 550,416 1,163,859 190 Other Operating Projects 1,665,582 388,899 179,955 334,503 2,568,939 211 Voted Debt Service 1,830,793 2,064,108 212 Councilmanic Debt Service 4,313,624 272,563 4,586,187 250 Special Assessment 4,918,488 233,315 839,162 5,990,965 310 Street Capital Projects 89,499,408 6,386,164 9,235,813 919,525 106,040,910 320 Parks Capital Projects 7,702,781 1,580,781 1,600,709 9,276,547 20,160,818 330 Other Capital Projects 21.429,546 463,000 151,796 33,332,869 55,377,211 410 Water 17,885,270 12,870,069 1,467,149 2,429,797 34,652,285 "0 Sewerage 31,741,259 30,341,332 849,453 9,526,889 72,458,933 480 Golf Complex 75,650 3,747,112 (254,573) 1,223,227 4.791,416 510 Fleet Services 112,000 2,767,488 (76,454) 2,803.034 520 Central Services 11,763,718 5,953,198 (288,845) 931,884 18,359,955 530 Fire Equipment Fund 500,000 102,011 2,534,000 3,136,011 540 Facilities Fund 9,413,023 7,038,733 593,893 2,835,650 19,881,299 560 Insurance 7,173,116 12 2,019,330 9,192,458 620 Firemen's Relief 8 Pension 246,668 246,668 680 Economic Development 5,814 5,814 Total Gross Budget 194,106,571 163,269,259 16,655,480 67,284,844 441,316,154 Less: Internal Service Funds 16,620,530 (20,248) 604,344 17,204,626 Other Transfers 15,994,074 13,872,422 4,418,393 19,172,134 53,457.023 Internal Transfers 1.304,096 12,409,282 85,278 9,064,325 22,862,981 Total Net Budget 176,808,401 120.367,025 12,172,057 38,444,041 347,791,524 1 2000FINALBUDORDI As 1216/00 Adjustment Ordinance General Fund 341,444 Street Fund (651,539) Lodging Tax Fund 6,000 Youth/Teen Fund 0 Capital Improvement 883,761 Criminal Justice 229,232 Environmental Mitigation 0 Housing & Community Development 0 Other Operating Projects 334,503 Voted Debt Service 0 Councilmanic Debt Service 272,563 Special Assessments 839,162 Street Capital Projects 919,525 Parks Capital Projects 9,276,547 Other Capital Projects 33,332,869 Water 2,429,797 Sewerage 9,526,889 Golf Complex 1,223,227 Equipment Rental 0 Central Services 931,884 Fire Equipment Fund 2,534.000 Facilities Fund 2,835,650 Insurance 2,019,330 Total Gross Budget 67,284,844 Less: Internal Service Funds 604,344 Other Transfers 19,172,134 Internal Transfers 9,064,325 Total Net Budget 38,444,041 2 City of Kent General Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 56,950,156 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3525 324,592 57,274,748 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Corr of 99 Carryover Cops Universal Grant 1999 22,032 To adjust Facilities fund for Space Cost Allocations 2000 65,682 Previously Approved with Council Date Sutlief Donation to Specialized Recreation 6/20/00 5,000 KC Work Summer Training Grant for Spec Rec 8/1100 19,200 City Automation Plan-JD Edwards 8/15/00 50.112 1-695 Add Back funds for Pub Sfty-Legal 9/5/00 175,418 State of Wash Discovery Trust Grant 9/19/00 4,000 Finance Technician-Staff Status Change to RPT 12/12/00 - Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 341,444 Total Expenditures 57,616,192 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 54,369,953 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 324,592 Beginning Fund Balance 8,268,282 Ending Fund Balance (5,688,079) 57,274,748 Budget Adjustment Sources End Fund Bal 22,032 Local Govt Asst-2000 175,418 End Working Capital 65,682 County Grant 19,200 State Grant-Dshs 4,000 Trf In-City Auto 98 50,112 Contributions 5,000 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 341,444 Total Sources of Funding 57,616,192 3 2000FINALBUDOR01.xis 12/5100 City of Kent Street Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 4,319,870 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1,235,107 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds To rev Budget for 212th St Pave Restor-Doubled 2000 (567,000) To void 2000 Budget for 240th St Imprvmnt/E 116th 2000 (133,000) To correct 2000 Budget error-Fire Sprinkler System 2000 (250,000) Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 48,461 Trf proj funds to Fac fund-E Hill Mtc Landl2nd FI PW remodel 1013100 250,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures (651,539) Total Expenditures 4,903,438 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 3,855,017 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1.235,107 Beginning Fund Balance 1,498,510 Ending Fund Balance (1,033,657) Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital (651,539) Total Budget Adjustment Sources (651,539) Total Sources of Funding 4,903,438 4 2000FINALBUDORDt.xls 1215MO City of Kent Lodging Tax Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No. 3499 135,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 5,000 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Correction of budget for Tourism Project (58,000) Previously Approved with Council Date Kent Chamber of Commerce Marketing Contract 10/17/00 64,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 6,000 Total Expenditures 146,000 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 140,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 5,000 Beginning Fund Balance 0 Ending Fund Balance (5,000) 140,000 Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital 6,000 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 6,000 Total Sources of Funding 146,000 5 2000FINALBUDORDI xls 12/500 City of Kent Youth ! Teen Fund 1 Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 687,832 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 687,832 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 569,370 Beginning Fund Balance 320,951 Ending Fund Balance (202,489) 687,832 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 687,832 6 2DOOFINALBUDORDI xls 12/5M City of Kent Capital Improvement Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 7,048,262 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 427,817 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 186,352 Kent Downtown Public Market Development Auth 9/5/00 16,000 Interest expense for purchase of Borden properties 12/12/00 4,537 Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount Resource Center Parking Lot Project-REET (1) 40,915 Garrison Ck, Rus Rd Park Drain,Tennis Court Re-surf,West Fen Handball court,and Kent Memorial Pk Fld#1 Park renovation proj adjustments-REE (2) 185,957 Transfer to Facility fund to supplement debt sys for city space allocation (3) 300,000 Transfer to Facility fund to adjust fund balance (4) 150.000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 883,761 Total Expenditures 8,359,840 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 5,846,711 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 427,817 Beginning Fund Balance 2.579,606 Ending Fund Balance (1,378,055) 7,476,079 Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital 90,211 Transfers In 446,976 Trf In-Lid 342 Guara 1,284 Trf In-Lid 344 Guara 1,057 Trf In-Lid 346 Guara 17,249 Trf In-Lid Guaranty 42,102 Trf In-Lid327 Guaran 34,042 Trf In-Lid328,334 Gu 18,801 Trf In-Lid330 Guaran 74,271 Trf In-Lid331,335 Re 18,639 Trf In-Lid333,338,33 3,686 Trf In-Lid345 Guaran 28,211 TA In-Lid347,348 Gu 51,741 Trfs In-Lid 336 Guar 55,491 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 883,761 Total Sources of Funding 8,359.840 7 2000FINALBUDCRDI As 12/6M City of Kent Capital Improvement Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31., 2000 1)Resource Center Parking Lot project needs additional REET funds to complete project. 2)Garrison Creek, Russell Rd Park Drainage,Tennis Court Re-surf,West Fenwick Pk Hanball Court and Kent Memorial Pk Fld#1 needs additional REET funds to complete projects. 3)Additional transfers needed to supplement debt service interest expense 4) Transfer to Facility fund to adjust fund balance. 8 2000FINALBUDORD1.x1s 12/6JDO City of Kent Criminal Justice Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 2,149.355 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 707,768 Carryover Budget 2,201,891 Internal Transfers 453,496 5,512,510 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Correct 2000 Budget for Cops Universal Grant 2000 (69,493) Delete Carryover Budget for Drug Task Force 97-98 2000 (547,481) Domestic Violence Grant prof adjustment 2000 3,418 Confidential Fund proj adjustment 2000 29,062 Dare Contribution proj adjustment 2000 55,818 Previously Approved with Council Date Goals to Recovery Program 9/19/00 10,000 Law Enforcement Education Program Grant 8/15/00 (1,437) _ Underage Drinking Prevention Grant 7/5/00 23,984 Walk your children to school Grant 9/19/00 4,500 Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Grant 00-01 6/15/00 565,500 Range Equipment Upgrades 11/7/00 76.000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program 11/21/00 79,361 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 229,232 Total Expenditures 5,741,742 Budget Ordinance No.3499 1,763,468 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 707,768 Carryover Budget 2,201,891 Internal Transfers 453,496 Beginning Fund Balance 1,149,763 Ending Fund Balance (763,876) 5,512,510 Sources of Funding Budget Adjustment Sources Beg Working Capital 264,233 C.O.P.S. Universal 69,493 Doi Block Grant 71.425 Contributions 126,751 End Working Capital (224,210) Fed Indir-Dct&Ed (1,437) Fedlnd-Uad Prev-Wts 23,984 9 21100FINALBUDORD1.As 12/5)W City of Kent Criminal Justice Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Fund Raisers 155 Interest On Invest 21,076 Miscellaneous (2,150) Narcotics Gr-Justice 9,924 Seized Asset Proceed (137,036) Seized Money 21,081 St Gr-Ddtf Wtsc Mini 4,500 Trf In-General Fund 7,936 Trf In-Confident Fnd 43,000 Trf In-Criminal Just (69,493) Total Budget Adjustment Sources 229,232 Total Sources of Funding 5,741,742 10 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 1215M City of Kent Environmental Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 449,593 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 160,962 Carryover Budget 3,000 613,555 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 613,555 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 415,624 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 160,962 Carryover Budget 3,000 Beginning Fund Balance 111,802 Ending Fund Balance (77,833) 613,555 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 613,555 11 2000FINALBUDORDi xls 12/5,00 City of Kent Housing & Community Development Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No. 3499 550,416 Carryover Budget 613,443 1,163,859 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures - Total Expenditures 1,163,859 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 550,416 Carryover Budget 613,443 1,163,859 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 1,163,859 12 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 12/5= City of Kent - Other Operating Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 388,899 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 179,955 Carryover Budget 1,665,582 2,234,436 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Combine Misc Proj for Downtown Development 2000 150,000 Venture Fund proj adjustment 2000 2,858 KC-RJC Impact prof adjustment 2000 85,680 Fire Physical Fitness Fund proj adjustment 2000 24,354 Growth Mgmt Fund proj adjustment 2000 (1) Previously Approved with Council Date Kent Chamber of Commerce Marketing Contract 10/17100 26,000 LID Bond,Arbitrage Audit 11/21/00 45,612 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 334,503 Total Expenditures 2.568,939 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 333,850 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 179,955 Carryover Budget 1,665,582 Beginning Fund Balance 55,049 2,234,436 Budget Adjustment Sources Contributions 24,354 End Wrkng Cap-Adjust 2,856 Growth Mgmt Grant (1) Impact Fees-Hum Svcs 85,680 Trf In-Lodging Tax F 26,000 Trfs In-Lid 336 Guar 45,612 Trfs In-Unalloc Misc 150,000 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 334.503 Total Sources of Funding 2,568,939 13 2000FINALBUDORD1 As 12/5A0 City of Kent Voted Debt Service Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 1,830,793 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 1,830,793 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 1,856,507 Beginning Fund Balance 103,591 Ending Fund Balance (129,305) 1,830,793 Budget Adjustment Sources Total Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 1,830,793 14 2000FINALBUDORD1 zls 12f5= City of Kent Councilmanic Debt Service Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 4,313,624 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 268,026 Interest expense for purchase of Borden properties 12/12/00 4,537 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 272,563 Total Expenditures 4,586,187 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 4,313,743 Beginning Fund Balance 137 Ending Fund Balance (256) 4,313,624 Budget Adjustment Sources Other Interest Inc 24,611 Trf In-Capital Impry 190,889 Trf In-Restrict St 45,034 Trf In-Unrestrict St 3,427 Trfs In-Sewerage Fd 5,230 Trfs In-Water Fund 3,372 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 272,563 Total Sources of Funding 4,586,187 15 2000FINALBUDOR01 xls 1215A0 City of Kent Special Assessments Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 4,905,488 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 233,315 Internal Transfers 13,000 5,151,803 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date LID Bond,Arbitrage Audit 11/21/00 45,612 Not Previously Approved by Council Transfer excess Guaranty fnds to Gen Govt/Cap Imp fund (1) 793.550 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 839,162 Total Expenditures 5,990,965 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 5,029,487 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 233,315 Internal Transfers 13,000 Beginning Fund Balance 3,297,981 Ending Fund Balance (3,421,980) 5,151,803 Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital 2,341 End Wrkg Cap-Reserve 828,081 Interfund Interest 2,135 Repayment Of Advance 6,605 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 839,162 Total Sources of Funding 5,990,965 1)To transfer guaranty funds in excess of required 10% to General Govt/Capdal Improvements fund. Based on funds available at 12131/99 per the 1999 CAFR. 16 2000FINALBUDCROl xis 12/5)OC City of Kent Street Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 6,386,164 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 9,235,813 Carryover Budget 89,499,408 105,121,385 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Sepa Mitigation-Asphalt Overlays Prj Sepa Ord 2494 422,113 Cancel Bond sale-256th St Widing 2000 (2,949,000) To rev Budget for 212th St Pave Restor-Doubied 2000 (567,000) To void 2000 Budget for 240th St ImprvmnUE 116th 2000 (133,000) To correct 2000 Budget error 2000 (250,000) Corr LID 348-64th Ave Imps Bond Proceeds 8/4/98 346,866 LID 348-64th Ave Imps proj adjustment 2000 (459,630) Asphalt Overlays Project adjustment 2000 44,147 Completed Street Projects adjustment 2000 60,391 Corridor Improvement Fund proj adjustment 2000 404,638 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bonds for Sound Transit Parking Garage 9/19/00 4,000,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 919,525 Total Expenditures 106,040,910 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 6,380,987 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 9,235,813 Carryover Budget 89,499,408 Internal Transfers Beginning Fund Balance 5,177 105,121,385 Budget Adjustment Sources Beg Working Capital 88,649 Charges For Services 290,031 Contributions 1,429,375 Interest On Invest 707,900 Prior Per Correction (856,437) Prior Per Util Taxes (575,000) Proceeds-Go Bonds (2,949,000) Proceeds-Lid Bonds (2,054,049) Reim b-Loss/Da mages 780 Rentals-Misc 111,083 Sales Of Maps/Public 558 Spec Assmnt-Prepays 2,400,915 17 2000FINALBUDORD1.xis 126/00 City of Kent Street Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Transfers In 3,267,340 Trf In-1921196 Corr 7,380 Trf In-Restrict St (133,000) Trf In-Street Util (567,000) Trf In-Unrestrict St (250,000) Total Budget Adjustment Sources 919,525 Total Sources of Funding 106,040,910 1$ 2000FiNALBUDOROI■is 1215M City of Kent Park Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 1,580,781 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1,600,709 Carryover Budget 7,702,781 10,884,271 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Project reallocations for Linda Heights, KC Lake Fenwick, Resource Center Parking Lot, Neely Soames and Clark Lake Wetlands 2.000 528,648 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bonds 9119100 2,500,000 IAC/LWCF Grant for Clark Lake Park 9/5/00 252,187 Clark Lake Land Acquisition 11/7/00 5,738,840 Kent Chamber of Commerce Marketing Contract 10/17/00 (20,000) KC Grant for East Hill Yourth Sports Facility 11/21/00 50,000 Not Previously Approved by Council Resource Center Parking Lot Project-REET (1) 40,915 Garrison Ck, Rus Rd Park Drain,Tennis Court Re-surf,West Fen Handball court, and Kent Memorial Pk Fld#1 Park renovation proj adjustments-REE (2) 185,957 Parks Dev Coordinator-Staff Status Change from.75 to 1 Fulltime (3) - Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 9,276,547 Total Expenditures 20,160,818 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 1,580,781 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1,600,709 Carryover Budget 7,702,781 10,884,271 Budget Adjustment Sources Contributions (31,408) County Grant 100,000 End Working Capital 245,560 Interest On Invest 92,646 Kc Open Space Bonds 8,283 Misc Revenue 3 Parking Fees (1,575) Pymt-Lieu Of Pks Ded 250,000 Sale-Junk/Satvage 4,700 Sales Of Maps/Public 3,731 19 2000FINALBUDORDI xls 12/5)00 City of Kent Park Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 State-lac 252,145 Transfers In 6,912,850 Trf In-Cap Imp 2Nd Q 226,872 Trf In-Capital Impry 86,072 Trf In-Fee Lieu Eh 250,000 Trf In-Lodging Tax F (20,000) Trf In-Park Land Acq 778,050 Trf In-Pks Grt Match 116,618 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 9,276,547 Total Sources of Funding 20,160,818 1)Resource Center Parking Lot project needs additional REET funds to complete project. 2)Garrison Creek, Russell Rd Park Drainage,Tennis Court Re-surf,West Fenwick Pk Hanball Court and Kent Memorial Pk Fid#1 needs additional REET funds to complete projects. 3)To increase Parks Development coordinator from .75 Fulltime to 1.0 Fulltime. No dollar impact. 20 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 1215/00 City of Kent Other Capital Projects Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 463,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 151,796 Carryover Budget 21,429,546 22,044,342 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Combine Misc Proj for Downtown Development 2000 5,000 Correct 2000 Budget for Unalloc Misc Projects 2000 (86,739) Trf unalloc Misc Proj funds to IT move to CH 1 sU2nd floor 2000 56,040 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 11,220,000 2000 LTGO Bond sale-Refunding portion 9/19/00 8,230,774 City Automation Plan-JD Edwards 8/15/00 875,000 Corrections Annex Renovation Project 11/7/00 132,794 Purchase of Borden and Burlington Northern properties for Urban Center 12/12/00 12,900,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 33,332,869 Total Expenditures 55,377,211 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 463,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 151,796 Carryover Budget 21,429,546 22,044,342 Budget Adjustment Sources Sale Of Land 3,900,000 Chrg In Lieu Of Asse 3,692 Intergovt Loans 9,000,000 Fmv Gain-Loss On Inv (25,699) Gain/Loss On Assets 13,430 Interest On Invest 875,000 Proceeds-Go Bonds 11,485,000 Proceeds-Refunding 7,585,000 Proprietary Gains 380,774 Res Eq Trf-Gen Fund 3,012 Sale-Junk/Salvage 2,720 Valley Comm Levy 109,940 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 33,332,869 Total Sources of Funding 55,377,211 21 2000FINALBUDORD1.Xis 12/5,00 City of Kent Water Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 9,328,831 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1,467,149 Carryover Budget 17,885,270 Internal Transfers 3,541,238 32,222,488 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Project reallocations for Misc Water, LID 348-64th Ave,Additional Water Source development and Water Comp Plan Update 2000 2,026,425 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 3,372 Trf proj funds to Fac fund-E Hill Mtc Land/2nd FI PW remodel 10/3/00 400,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 2,429,797 Total Expenditures 34,652.285 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 8,749,062 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 1,467,149 Carryover Budget 17,885,270 Internal Transfers 3,541,238 Beginning Fund Balance 2,866,076 Ending Fund Balance (2,286,307) 32,222.488 Budget Adjustment Sources Beg Working Capital 720,657 Beg Wrkng Cap-Adjust (351,194) End Working Capital (21,415) End Wrkng Cp-B/C Adj 900 Printing Revenue 196 Proceeds-Lid Bonds (137,716) Sales Of Maps/Public 74 Transfers In 1,335,651 Trfs In-Lid 348 64Th 122,059 Trfs In-Water Fund 760,585 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 2,429,797 Total Sources of Funding 34,652,285 ^ 22 2000FINALBU00RDI xis 1215/00 City of Kent Sewerage Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 23,230,386 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 849,453 Carryover Budget 31,741,259 Internal Transfers 7,110,946 62,932,044 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Sepa Mitigation-Soos Crk Comp Or pin Sepa Ord 2494 50,000 Project reallocation for Misc Sewer/Drain, Facility cast allocations and Mill Creek Trunk 2000 9,221,659 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9/19/00 5,230 Trf proj funds to Fac fund-E Hill Mtc Land/2nd FI PW remodel 10/3/00 250,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 9,526,889 Total Expenditures 72,458,933 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 22,405,620 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 849,453 Carryover Budget 31,741,259 Internal Transfers 7,110,946 Beginning Fund Balance 4,311,786 Ending Fund Balance (3,487,020) 62,932,044 Budget Adjustment Sources Charges For Services 4,000 Contributions 150,000 County Grant 2,191,372 End Working Capital 1,478,052 Engineering Charges (37,525) Proceeds-Lid Bonds (432,823) Transfers In 1,631,198 Trfs In-Lid 348 64Th 383,614 Trfs In-Misc Or Impv 1,780,738 Trfs In-Sewerage Fd 2,378,263 Total Budget Adjustment Sources 9.526,889 Total Sources of Funding 72,458.933 23 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 12/5W City of Kent Golf Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 _ Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 3,126,714 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 (254,573) Carryover Budget 75,650 Internal Transfers 620,398 3,568,189 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds To adjust Facilities fund for Space Cost Allocations 2000 (3,935) Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9119f00 1,047,475 Not Previously Approved by Council To increase budget for unanticipated extra start up costs for 2000 (1) 179,687 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 1,223,227 Total Expenditures 4,791,416 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 3,603,300 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 (254.573) Carryover Budget 75,650 Internal Transfers 620,398 Beginning Fund Balance (511,205) Ending Fund Balance 34,619 3,568,189 Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital 154,054 Golf Green Fees-Tax 30,000 Other Interest Inc 1,472 Proceeds-Refunding 1,075,000 Proprietary Losses (68,418) Rentals-Golf Equip-T 5,000 Sales-Merchandise 30,000 Trfs In-Golf Fund (3,881) Total Budget Adjustment Sources 1,223,227 Total Sources of Funding 4,791,416 1)To increase budget for unanticipated extra start up costs for 2000 Golf overruns. 24 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 12I5A0 City of Kent Fleet Services Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 2,767,488 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 (76,454) Carryover Budget 112,000 2,803,034 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 2,803,034 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 2,485,965 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 (76,454) Carryover Budget 112,000 Beginning Fund Balance 2,629,514 Ending Fund Balance (2,347,991) 2,803,034 Budget Adjustment Sources Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 2,803,034 25 2000FINALBUDORD1.xis 12t5M City of Kent Central Services Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 5,B88,544 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 (268,845) Carryover Budget 11,763,718 Internal Transfers 64,654 17,428,071 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds To adjust Facilities fund for Space Cost Allocations 2000 56,884 Previously Approved with Council Date City Automation Plan-JD Edwards 8/15/00 875,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 931,884 Total Expenditures 18,359,955 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 5,563,523 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 (288,845) Carryover Budget 11,763,718 Internal Transfers 64,654 Beginning Fund Balance 374,079 Ending Fund Balance (49,058) 17,428,071 Budget Adjustment Sources End Working Capital 56,884 Trf In-99 Ltgo Bonds 875.000 Budget Adjustment Sources 931,884 Total Sources of Funding 18,359,955 26 2000FINALBUDCRDI xls 1215/00 City of Kent Fire Equipment Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 500,000 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 102,011 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale-Two Fire Trucks 9/19/00 1,140,000 Purchase of Additional Fire Trucks 11/21/00 894,000 Purchase Fire District 37 Vehicle-To be reimbursed 11/21/00 500,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 2,534,000 Total Expenditures 3,136,011 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 522,481 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 102,011 Beginning Fund Balance 366,204 Ending Fund Balance (388,685) 602,011 Budget Adjustment Sources County Grant 394,000 Transfers In-Fire Equip 500,000 Transfers In-2000 Ltgo Bonds 1,140,000 End Working Capital 500,000 Budget Adjustment Sources 2,534,000 Total Sources of Funding 3,136,011 27 2000FINALBUDORD1.xis 12/5A10 City of Kent Facilities Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 6,433,183 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 593,893 Carryover Budget 9,413,023 Internal Transfers 605,550 17,045,649 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds Project reallocations for Corrections Imp,Golf interfund adjustment, Space Cost allocations, IT move, Furniture prof and CH Annex proj 2000 500,246 Previously Approved with Council Date 2000 LTGO Bond sale 9119/00 1,580,000 Trf proj funds to Fac fund-E Hill Mtc Land/2nd FI PW remodel 10/3/00 900,000 Centennial Building Custodial Work 2115/00 22,610 Corrections Annex Renovation Project 11/7100 132,794 Not Previously Approved by Council Adjust debt transfer (1) (300,000) Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 2,835,650 Total Expenditures 19,881,299 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 6,473,378 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 593,893 Carryover Budget 9,413,023 Internal Transfers 605,550 Beginning Fund Balance 77,377 Ending Fund Balance (117,572) 17,045,649 Budget Adjustment Sources Cert-Photo-Rec Searc 35 End Working Capital (359,293) Interest On Invest 2,389 Leases-Long Term 28,577 Proceeds-Go Bonds (2,000,000) Public Ofc Bldg Rev 133,990 Sales Of Maps/Public 2,049 Transfers In 3,496,417 Trf In-Capital Impry 442,652 Trf In-Police Mdt SI 132,794 Trf In-Unrestrict St 250,000 28 2000FINALBUDORDI xls 12/5,00 City of Kent Facilities Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Trfs In-Sewerage I'd 250,000 Trfs In-Unalloc Misc 56,040 Trfs In-water Fund 400,000 Budget Adjustment Sources 2,835,650 Total Sources of Funding 19,881,299 1) Reduce transfer needed for debt service payments picked up by CIP fund. 29 2000FINALBUDORD1.xls 12/5/00 City of Kent Insurance Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No,3499 7,173,116 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3526 12 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Previously Approved with Council Date City Automation Plan-JD Edwards 8/15/00 25,497 Not Previously Approved by Council Health Insurance fund claims adjustment (1) 812,715 Workers Compensation fund claims adjustment (2) 344,983 Liability insurance estimated but unreported claims adjustment (3) 436,135 Internal transfer from Liability fund to Workers Comp fund (4) 400,000 Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 2,019,330 Total Expenditures 9,192,458 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 7,056,664 Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3526 12 Beginning Fund Balance 3,127,073 Ending Fund Balance (3,010,621) 7,173,128 Budget Adjustment Sources Ending Working Capital 1,053,479 Claims Estimated Revenue Increase 470,354 Interest On Investments Projection Increase 70,000 Internal Transfers 400,000 Transfers From Other Funds 25,497 Budget Adjustment Sources 2,019,330 Total Sources of Funding 9,192,458 1)Estimated 2000 additional claims expense over original budget funded by increase of investment interest income, claims revenue and utilize fund balance. 2)Estimated 2000 additional claims expense over original budget funded by internal transfer from Liability self Insurance fund. 3) Ultimate loss to be booked in year of occurrence per actuarial study. Utilize fund balance. 4) To fund additional workers compensation claims in 2001. Utilize fund balance. 30 200OFINALBUDORDI xis 1215= City of Kent Firemen's Pension Fund Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 246,668 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 246,668 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No.3499 231,875 Beginning Fund Balance 3,726,858 Ending Fund Balance (3,712,065) 246,668 Budget Adjustment Sources Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 246,668 31 2000FINALBUDORDI xls 12/5100 City of Kent Economic Development Corp Budget Adjustments thru December 31, 2000 Source of Authorization Expenditures Funding Expenditures Budget Ordinance No.3499 5,814 Budget Adjustment Expenditures Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 0 Total Expenditures 5,814 Sources of Funding Budget Ordinance No. 3499 12,000 Beginning Fund Balance 28,557 Ending Fund Balance (34,743) 5,814 Budget Adjustment Sources Budget Adjustment Sources 0 Total Sources of Funding 5.814 32 2000FINALBUDORDI xis 12/5/00 , Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PACIFIC GATEWAY BSI PARK FINAL PLAT (FSU-99-1 KIVA #2003004) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the staff ' s recommendation of approval with conditions of the Pacific Gateway GSI Park Final Subdivision and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This final plat application was submitted by Boeing Realty Corporation for the Pacific Gateway GSI Park Final Subdivision. The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions on the preliminary plat on December 30, 1999 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo and map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6P �• KENT WASHINGTON COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT December 4, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL Manager Mailing Address: FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,PLANNING MANAGER 220 Fourth Ave.S. MEETING Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: DECEM 3ER 12,2000 Location Address: 400 West Gowe SUBJECT: PACIFIC GATEWAY BSI PARK FINAL SUBDMSION Kent,WA 98032 #FSU-99-1 (KIVA#2003004) Phone:253-856-5454 Fax:253-856-6454 On December 30, 1999, the Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation with conditions on the Pacific Gateway BSI Park Final Subdivision #FSU-99-1 (Kiva #2003004), a 203 acre, 33-lot industrial plat. The property is located at the southwest corner of West Valley Highway and south 196t°. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Pacific Gateway BSI Park Final Subdivision #FSU-99-1 with the attached conditions and authorize the Mayor to sign the mylar. FNS/mjp/S:\Permit\Plan\longplats\2000\2003004fsu9901 cc.doc Enclosure PACIFIC GATEWAY BSI PARK #SU-99-1 KIVA#9901567 The Hearing Examiner approved the above-mentioned preliminary plat with conditions on December 30, 1999. The subdivision of 203 acres into 33 industrial lots. A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Owner / Subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures as required by the Mitigated determination of Nonsignificance for SEPA checklist #ENV-99-38 for Pacific Gateway Business Park. B. PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PACIFIC GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION: 1. The Owner/ Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the Department of Public Works, and either construct or bond for the following: a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The sewer system shall be extended from the existing public sanitary sewer system across the entire subdivision and shall be sized to serve all properties within the same service area. Existing septic systems within the proposed subdivision - if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department Regulations. b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots within the subdivision. The water system shall be extended from the existing public water system across the entire subdivision and shall be sized to serve all properties within the same service area. Existing wells — if any - shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Ecology, or the Owner / Subdivider shall provide the City with proof of the necessary water rights. C. Detailed Drainage Plans which show how the 100-year post-developed stormwater runoff from the public streets and this entire development will be collected, conveyed, stored, treated and released to the City stormwater drainage system in compliance with the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #5-3, Detailed Drainage Plans. (1) The Owner/ Subdivider shall construct a public on-site detention / retention pond system in accordance with the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff Pacific Gateway BSI Park #SU-99-1 KIVA #9901567 Conditions of Approval quantity for runoff from the entire subdivision area. The detention/ retention pond storage volume and release criteria shall be that for the Valley unless an HPA permit requires more detention volume or a more stringent discharge criteria. The pre-development condition for this development shall be assumed to be grass only unless otherwise determined by the Director of Public Works. (2) To address known flooding in Mill Creek, the public on-site detention / retention pond shall limit the peak rate of stormwater discharge to Mill Creek according to the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards. Due to potential backwater from Mill Creek, a condition of City approval of the conceptual & preliminary drainage plan is that the Owner / Subdivider shall construct a flood mitigation system in the detention / retention pond. Two acceptable alternatives to mitigate the potential backwater are placing the bottom of designed active detention storage at the level of the two year storm event in Mill Creek (an elevation of 19.2) or including a pump discharge system capable of discharging a maximum of 30 cubic feet per second to the Green River. Other alternatives for the flood mitigation system may be deemed acceptable by the Public Works Director. (3) Upon development of each lot within this subdivision, roof downspouts for each building shall be directed to Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches or Perforated Stubouts meeting the requirements of the Department of Public works. These roof downspout conveyance and infiltration systems shall include overflow pipes connected to an approved conveyance system. The Detailed Drainage Plans will include an approved detail for the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches or Perforated Stubouts and will provide private stormwater stubouts to each lot for future connection from the Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches or Perforated Stubouts. The face of the recorded plat shall contain the following restriction: AS A CONDITION OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS OF THIS SUBDIVISION MUST PROVIDE ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION TRENCH (PERFORATED STUBOUT) SYSTEMS PER DETAILS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED STORMWATER PLANS. Page 2 Pacific Gateway BSI Park _ #SU-99-1 KIVA#9901567 Conditions of Approval (4) The required downstream analysis for this development will include an analysis for capacity, erosion potential, backwater impacts, and water quality from the point of discharge from the site downstream to Mill Creek, whichever distance is further. This downstream analysis shall also contain consideration of the City's Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study and will require the use of HSPF, King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) and/or FEQ for this downstream reach to demonstrate that the fully developed runoff from this new development will not cause flooding downstream. (5) Sufficient information shall be provided to ensure that a gravity stormwater conveyance, treatment, and detention system shall be provided for the entire subdivision and for each lot. Individual Detailed Drainage Plans for separate lots requiring the pumping of stormwater, except from truck ramps constructed below grade, will not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. (6) The public drainage system shall not include the existing private drainage pipe conveyance system shown on the preliminary drainage plans unless specifically approved by the Director of Public Works. d. Landscape Plans for within and surrounding the public retention / detention pond facility. These plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #5, Landscape Plans. These plans shall be submitted to both the Planning Department and to the Department of Public Works for concurrent review and approval prior to, or in conjunction with, the approval of the Detailed Drainage Plans. e. An open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system in accordance with the requirements of the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff quality for runoff from the entire subdivision area. Acceptable stormwater treatment facilities meeting this requirement in their preferred order include: infiltration after pretreatment; biofiltration swales; wet ponds; extended detention ponds; and created wetlands. (1) The stormwater treatment system shall be within the approved public retention / detention pond facility tract unless biofiltration swales are constructed within the public rights-of-way for the new public streets. Page 3 Pacific Gateway BSI Park #SU-99-1 KIVA#9901567 Conditions of Approval (2) Easements for biofiltration swales across private lots will not be acceptable to meet this requirement. f. A Detailed Grading Plan for the entire subdivision. These plans shall include provisions for utilities, roadways, retention / detention ponds, stormwater treatment facilities, and general site grading within this industrial subdivision. These plans shall be designed to minimize the need for processing several individual Grading Permits upon application for Building Permits, and shall generally show the final contours, spot elevations, and the amount of fill required for the entire development to provide a gravity stormwater system from each lot. The phasing of actual grading on a lot-by-lot basis will be permitted. g. A Temporary Erosion / Sedimentation Control Plan for the entire subdivision meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards, and which reflects the Detailed Grading Plan discussed above, and the Planning Department approved Detailed Tree Plan. h. The Owner / Subdivider shall provide a final jurisdictional wetland determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("ACE). The Owner/Subdivider will provide a wetland mitigation plan that meets requirements for all jurisdictional wetlands (and/or wetland buffers), if required by the ACE. Unless otherwise required by the ACE, to the extent that jurisdictional wetlands are delineated, the Owner/ Subdivider will grant an easement, to the City, in recordable form, on terms and conditions acceptable by the City and the Owner / Subdivider to protect the jurisdictional wetland(s). The easement shall be stated on the face of the recorded plat. If the City determines that changes to the plat layout to avoid jurisdictional wetlands do not significantly alter the plat layout, those changes will not require additional Hearing Examiner approval. i. Street improvements for South 212`h Street — if any - will consist of those left turn pocket and channelization improvements determined necessary by the approved Queuing Analysis required as a condition of the DNS issued for ENV 99-38. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for a Page 4 Pacific Gateway BSI Park #SU-99-1 KIVA #9901567 Conditions of Approval street designated as a Principal Arterial Street Augmented With Bike Lanes by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. j. The abutting and off-site street improvements to West Valley Highway for this development — if any — will consist of those left turn pocket and channelization improvements determined necessary by the approved Queuing Analysis required as a condition of the DNS issued for ENV 99- 38. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements, for a street designated as a Principal Arterial Street Augmented With Bike Lanes by the City of Kent Master Plan of Roadways. k. Street Improvement Plans for the new Industrial Collector Arterial Streets (62"d Avenue South and 60`h Avenue South) beginning at South 196`h Street and terminating at South 212`h Street, as well as the proposed South 200`h Street, beginning at 62"d Avenue South and terminating at West Valley Highway. These Street Improvement Plans shall meet the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development _ Assistance Brochure #6-2, Private and Public Street Improvements for a street designated as an Industrial Collector Arterial Street. (1) The proposed street alignment and intersection design for the subject streets cannot be approved by the City without the prior approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if jurisdictional wetlands exist within the proposed roadway alignment. (2) These street improvements will include the installation of a new traffic signals at the intersection of 62"d Avenue South with South 196`h Street and upgrade of the existing signal at the intersection of 60`h Avenue South and South 212`h Street as necessary as a result of impacts from any required intersection improvements for the subdivision. (3) These street improvement plans shall provide for a curb to curb street width along 62"d Avenue South sufficient for four lanes at South 196`h Street, for three lanes at South 212`h Street, and for three lanes along South 2001h Street. At the intersection of 62"d Avenue South and 196`h Street, the lane widths including the receiving lanes shall be sufficient to accommodate double left turns with WB 60 Design Vehicles, or as otherwise determined necessary by the Public Works Department. Further an east bound Page 5 Pacific Gateway BSI Park #SU-99-1 KIVA #9901567 Conditions of Approval right turn decel lane on 196`h street at 62nd Ave shall be constructed to city standards (if one presently doesn't exists). 1. Street Light Plans for the new Industrial Collector Arterial Streets meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure#6-1, Street Lighting Requirements. 2. The Owner/ Subdivider shall dedicate, or deed, all necessary public rights-of-way for the required improvements and provide all public and private easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the improvements required for this subdivision. 3. Tract C shall be conveyed to the City, by Quitclaim Deed, for public purposes, pursuant to a mutually agreed upon Dedication Agreement as a condition of final plat approval, thereby exempting the subdivision and the future development of lots 22 - 33 from the Kent Shoreline Master Program. Said agreement shall be recorded against affected lots. If the proposed Dedication Agreement is not executed as anticipated, the Owner / Subdivider shall file an application for a plat alteration. 4. The Owner/ Subdivider shall obtain an approved Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), OR A WRITTEN WAIVER THEREFROM, from the Washington State Department of Fish and Game before the City gives its final approval for the Master Detailed Drainage Plans for this project. 5. The face of the plat shall provide for three (3) 20-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle easements to the eastern boundary of Tract C from 62nd Avenue South / 60`h Avenue South corridor within the subdivision, and shall show a fourth pedestrian and bicycle connection from South 2121h. The remaining three easements shall be equally spaced between lots 22 — 31. The easement may contain specific language which allows for the relocation of said easements subject to City approval. 6. Direct vehicular access shall not permitted to West Valley Highway, South 212`h Street; nor Russell Road from the lots abutting said streets. Direct vehicular access to South 196`h Street shall not be permitted unless otherwise approved by the City. The face of the plat will contain the following restriction: RESTRICTION: Direct vehicular access from abutting lots is prohibited along West Valley Highway, South 2121h Street, and Russell Road. Direct vehicular access to South 1961h Street is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the City. Page 6 Pacific Gateway BSI Park #SU-99-1 KIVA#9901567 Conditions of Approval 7. Prior to release of any construction bonds from the Department of Public Works, the Owner / Subdivider must receive approval for As-Built Drawings meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Construction Standards and Development Assistance Brochure #A-6, As-Built Drawings, for :Streets, Street Lights, Water, Sewer, Wetland Mitigation Site(s), and Stormwater Management Facilities. C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THE PACIFIC GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION (SU-99-01 OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL: 1. Record the Plat. 2. Construct, or if approved by the City, bond for all of the improvements required above. 3. Receive approval of the required As-Built Drawings for Streets, Street Lights, Water, Sewer, Wetland Mitigation Site(s), and Stormwater Management Facilities. 4. The construction of the required 10-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle path, on those _ lots containing an easement requirement for said path, shall be in conjunction with a building permit for the affected lot. These paths shall be illuminated as required to meet the guidelines provided by the "Recommended Lighting for Walkways and Class I Bikeways;' prepared by the IESNA Roadway Lighting Subcommittee for Off Roadway Facilities, 1994 (a.k.a. as publication DG-5-94). Page 7 I �'I I d 17 16 16 12 10 6 6 4 1 2 mlpm rnrrc. M(1N W/3- PPAS$/ - -- 11 0 7 6 Ar;CCr•r[D AS Cl/4 14 3 wvnrn MA( ?M0 - 21 10 _. __ YU _ _ rin Atn lrn1. <. Ins r ,❑ 22 AC n•v cool rt ,n-1 TRACT C 7 8 �n:mn ems 23 TRACT A — I 24 25 LI / 26 I•..p 27 i 26 20 -- vg'77'4rrE__ 30 S89'22'46"1 ;'I-If.G.'•' I r01111D IrnD A 1ACK IN 2616 65' — _ — ._ _ __.._ ._______ CONC. MON IN CAS[ 31 1 I !' VISNED MAY zmD TRACT C- _ I I II 1 32 33 I ui l — — o y I � 7 0 II 1 N89'17'07"w + 5252.71'(C) .� LEGEND -���•� FOD11D MONUMENT AS NOTED r YX CALCULATED MONUMENT POSITION PACIFIC GATEWAY BSI PARK (C) CAI CULATED FINAL PLAT #FSU-99-11200300 (M) MFASUPFr) , Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CITY OF AUBURN HOME REPAIR SERVICES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to execute the Interlocal Agreement with the City of Auburn to maintain their Home Repair program, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. The City of Auburn has requested the City of Kent provide Home Repair services to Auburn residents in 2001 . Auburn is currently contracting with King County Housing Authority. The current provider is limited in its ability to meet the needs of Auburn. The Kent Home Repair Program would be able to provide home repair services at a lower unit cost with a significantly shorter response time . Kent staff has prepared a proposal describing the services that could be provided and the cost to Auburn. An interlocal agreement outlining the services and compensation would be entered into with the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn would reimburse Kent for all costs associated with the program including an administrative fee 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $10 , 416 . 64/monthly SOURCE OF FUNDS : City of Auburn HUD Funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Q Staff Report Background The City of Kent has provided Home Repair Services funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)for the past twenty years to Kent residents. During that time, the program has undergone many changes to increase the responsiveness to citizens while being cost effective. The Kent Home Repair program is one of the few programs run by a suburban city. The effectiveness of our program has been noted by surrounding cities and staff is consistently asked to provide technical assistance to other programs. The City of Auburn currently contracts with King County Housing Authority to provide Home Repair services. The program is funded with a CDBG grant. Auburn staff recently evaluated the services received by residents and determined there was a need to find a new service provider. The City of Auburn needs services that will be provided in a more timely manner and use more cost effective methods. The types of repairs, dwelling units and clients are very similar to Kent. The Auburn Planning Director and Human Service Planner contacted Kent's Housing and Human Service division to discuss the feasibility of Kent contracting with Auburn to provide home repair services. John Hodgson, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and Katherin Johnson, Human Services Manager met with City of Auburn staff to discuss the proposed project. A review of the services Auburn has received over the past three years from its current serve provider has led Kent staff to determine it would be feasible to provide expanded services at the same level of funding. Kent staff would also be able to provide services that are more responsive. Program Description The City of Kent Home Repair Program will provide: • Minor Home Repair services to qualified Auburn residents • Major Home Repair services performed by contractors to qualified Auburn residents • Emergency Home Repair services performed by Home Repair staff and/or contractors based on need. • Monthly reports meeting all HUD Community Development Block Grant requirements To accomplish the above the Kent Home Repair Program will provide: • Home Repair Specialist- .75 FTE • Van • Tools and materials • Administration based on 10% of the contract • Additional resource and referral services • Monthly service reports and billings The City of Auburn will provide: • Client referrals • Priority preferences for services • Staff assistance in development of the program • Initial intake • Loan processing The City of Auburn will provide financial remuneration as follows • A one-year interlocal agreement for$125,000 • Reimbursement monthly for one-twelfth of the total grant equal to$10,416 Program Outcomes and Performance Measures Outcomes • Increase the home safety of low and moderate-income homeowners • Improved condition of the housing stock for low and moderate income homeowners Performance Measures • 40 Unduplicated City of Auburn clients • Minor home repairs • 15 Major home repairs Program Evaluation • Program evaluation is an important part of the success of any program. This program will be evaluated on two levels. The first level of evaluation is of the contractual requirements. The second level is of client satisfaction with the services. The following activities are required for the evaluation. • Evaluate the program after the first ten months to determine its effectiveness in meeting the outcomes and performance measures. The evaluation should include a staff review for contract compliance and a client satisfaction survey. • Evaluation results will be presented to Auburn and Kent Council committees by the end of 2001 for review before renewing the interlocal. Proposed Program Budget • The following budget is based on current knowledge of Home Repair Services provided in the City of Kent and work completed in Auburn in prior year. Item Annual Monthly Personnel Costs $32,420 $2,701.66 (includes salary and benefits) .75 FTE Vehicle and $9,000 $750.00 transportation costs Tools, materials, and $20,680 $1,723.33 equipment Administration Costs $12,500 $1,041.66 Contracted Services $50,000 $4,166.66 Communication $400 $33.33 Total $125,000 $10,416.64 Staff Analysis Benefits Auburn • Opportunity to collaborate with neighboring city • Cost effect for Auburn in that Kent Home Repair staff are trained to do many of the repairs currently being done by private contractors and can do the repairs at a lower cost • Response time to Auburn residents will be significantly reduced • Increased number of residents receiving services • Minor repairs, which are not currently provided, will reduce the need for major repairs long term and preserve the housing stock • Reimbursement requests will be submitted monthly with all funds expended by year-end Kent • Opportunity to collaborate with neighboring city • Cost effective for Kent in that the addition of another staff person would allow for hiring someone trained in a specific construction area. This decreases the dependence on outside contractors. The .75 FTE for Auburn would not be a specific staff person but the number of hours provided by the staf. most qualified to perform the current job. • Increase buying power due to bulk purchases • Provides an opportunity to evaluate a trial program using a modified sub-regional approach Disadvantages • The beginning stages of any new program require time to hire and train staff, educate the public and establish operating practices. This results in the initial months of service not being at the level currently expected of Kent staff. • Staff from both cities will need to spend time coordinating the program. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: • The City of Kent and the City of Auburn enter a one-year interlocal agreement for Kent to provide Home Repair Services in the City of Auburn. Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ROTARY CLUB BASKETBALL COURT PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Rotary Club Basketball Court Project as complete and release retainage to Mer-Con Inc . upon receipt of state compliance affidavits, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. On August 22 , 2000, staff inspected and accepted the Rotary Club Basketball Court Project from Mer-Con Inc . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6R Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: GARRISON CREEK PARK COURT RE-SURFACING PROJECT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Garrison Creek Park Court Re-surfacing Project as complete, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. On July 26, 2000, staff inspected and accepted the Garrison Creek Court Re-Surfacing project from Mid-Pac Construction. 3 . EXHIBITS : None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (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. 6S - .. �-- — — Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CHESTNUT RIDGE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the house demolition from J. Harper Construction, the barn demolition from Virginia Ashmore and the cabin demolition from Duchess Construction as complete, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director. The house, barn and cabin demolitions at 20403 100th Avenue SE were inspected and approved by staff in June 2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS • None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (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. 6T Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: CLARK LAKE PARK HOUSE - SURPLUS AND DEMOLISH 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to surplus and demolish the house located at 24420 SE 120th Street, at Clark Lake Park, as recommended by the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Director. The Kent City Council recently approved the acquisition of 78 acres at Clark Lake on the East Hill of Kent for a community park. The house located on the property was inspected by staff and professionals . It was found to be in very poor condition and uninhabitable . Staff reviewed all options and decided it would be in the best interest of the City to surplus and demolish the house . 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Approximately $18 , 000 SOURCE OF FUNDS : CIP Funds : Rental House Revenue 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6U Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE REAPPOINTMENTS - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Mr. Mike Buckingham to continue serving as a member of the Drinking Driver Task Force . Mr. Buckingham' s new appointment will continue until 1/1/2004 . 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. 6V KEOT MEMORANDUM W A 5 H I N G T O N TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL SIDENT , CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: DECEMBER 4,2000, SUBJECT: RE-APPOINTMENT TO DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE I have re-appointed Mr. Mike Buckingham to continue serving as a member of the Drinking Driver Task Force. His new appointment will continue until 1/1/2004. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD REAPPOINTMENTS - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Jon Johnson and Terry Zimmerman to continue serving as members of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board. Their new appointments will continue until 12/31/2003 . 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. 6W KENT MEMORANDUM W A 5 M I N G T O N TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2000 SUBJECT: RE-APPOINTMENTS TO LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD I have re-appointed Mr. Jon Johnson and Ms. Terry Zimmerman to continue serving as members of the Land Use and Planning Board. Their new appointments will continue until 12/31/2003. 1 submit this for your confirmation. jb �klf Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to finalize and enter into an agreement with Stewart Beall & MacNichols for Public Defense Services. The law firm of Stewart Beall & MacNichols, P. S . currently contracts with the City to provide legal services to indigent defendants in the City of Kent . The Agreement between the City and Stewart Beall & MacNichols expires on December 31, 2000 . Stewart Beall & MacNichols has provided services to the City for 6 years and during the last 4 years has been paid $198 , 000 . 00 per year for its services . The proposed contract, for a two-year term commencing on January 1, 2001 and expiring on December 31, 2002 , would increase the annual fee to $264 , 000 . 00 per year, which amounts to approximately $100 per case for public defense services . 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6X AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF KENT, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and STEWART BEALL& MacNICHOLS,P.S., a Washington professional services corporation,hereinafter referred to as "Attorney." In consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scone of Services. The Attorney agrees to provide public defender services for indigent criminal defendants charged with criminal violations of Title 8 and 9 of the Kent City Code(KCC), as set forth in this Agreement. All indigent criminal defendants charged with committing an offense under Title 8 and 9 KCC who qualify for appointed counsel or are appointed from the bench shall be referred to the Attorney. The Attorney shall enter a Notice of Appearance and provide legal representation for each of these defendants from the time of receiving notice or an order of appointment through arraignment, if appropriate, pretrial hearings, trial and sentencing, review hearings as required by the judge, revocation hearings, and appeals. 2. Number of Attorneys. The Attorney will provide an adequate number of defense counsel to efficiently manage each court calendar, in a manner that avoids unnecessary delay in completing the calendar. The attorney shall ensure that multiple defense counsel are present whenever the court's caseload necessitates the presence of more than one attorney to effectively and efficiently manage the calendar,unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto. As a guideline, and not a requirement,Attorney shall endeavor to meet the following levels of representation for all court calendars: a. Less than ten (10) assigned defendants, one (1) attorney shall be present; b. Less than twenty-five (25) assigned defendants, two (2) attorneys shall be present; C. Twenty-five (25) assigned defendants or more, three (3) attorneys shall be present. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES- 1 (December 6,1000) Substantial compliance with these guidelines, however, is subject to the Attorney's responsibility to determine the appropriate level of representation for its clients. Further, sufficient counsel shall be provided to represent defendants during vacation, illnesses, and settings in more than one courtroom. 3. Defendant's Access to Attorney. The parties agree that client access to Attorney prior to appearance in court is paramount. Qualifying criminal defendants shall be provided access to the Attorney by means of a toll-free local call from a Kent telephone number made available by the Attorney. Attorney currently maintains offices at 655 W. Smith Street, Suite 210, Kent, Washington, and will, at all times during the term of this Agreement, maintain an office at such location or in South King County at such a location as to facilitate client access for purposes of providing the services required herein. The Attorney shall see all in-custody clients at the Kent Corrections Facility within 48 hours of notification of appointment, excluding weekends and holidays, and will return to said facilities to consult with client as necessary. The Attorney shall see all in-custody clients at the King County Regional Justice Center within a reasonable period of time following notice of appointment and further shall see such clients in follow-up meetings as necessary. 4. Applicant Screening. Determinations of indigency for purposes of eligibility for appointed counsel under this Agreement shall be determined by an independent screening process established by the City and by direct appointments from the bench. Such appointment shall be in accordance with State law. Should the Attorney determine a defendant is not eligible for assigned counsel prior to the establishment of the attorney/client relationship, the Attorney shall promptly advise the City to reconsider the eligibility of that defendant. The City's determination of indigency shall be final and binding upon Attorney. 5. 24-Hour Telephone Access. The Attorney shall provide to.the City Police Department the telephone number or numbers at which an attorney can be reached twenty- four hours each day for "critical stage" advice to defendants during the course of police investigations and/or arrest. Such telephone numbers shall be serviced by a telephone paging AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-2 (December 6,2000) device or other similar monitoring method so that direct contact can be made with an attorney at any time of the day or night, seven days a week. 6. Associated Counsel. Any counsel associated with or employed by the Attorney shall have the authority to perform the services called for herein, and the Attorney may employ and/or associate counsel to assist him at the Attorney's expense. The Attorney and all counsel employed or associated pursuant to this section shall be admitted to the practice of law in the State of Washington and be in good standing as such,pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. The Attorney shall be responsible for performance of this Agreement, notwithstanding that other counsel may be employed or associated by the Attorney to perform services hereunder. The Attorney shall actively supervise associated and employed counsel throughout the term of this Agreement, and any renewals hereof, to ensure that all cases are promptly and effectively handled from the time of appointment until conclusion of the Attorney's representation of the client. The Attorney shall notify the City of any proposed association or employment of counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein, and shall include in such notification information regarding the background, education, training, experience and qualifications of such counsel and any additional training and supervision that is proposed to be provided to such associated or employed counsel for purposes of performing the services called for herein. The Attorney shall be responsible for providing all such training and/or supervision at the Attorney's sole cost and expense. No legal intern shall perform the services called for herein without the prior approval of the City. 7. Term of this Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the l'day of January,2001, and shall be in force and effect through December 31,2002,unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-3 (December 6,2000) 8. Proof of Professional Liability Insurance. The Attorney shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Attorney, its agents, representatives, and employees. Before beginning work on the project described in this Agreement, the Attorney shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing: 1. Automobile Liability insurance with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and 2. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and general aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage; explosion, collapse and underground(XCU)if applicable; and employer's liability; and 3. Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than 1,000,000 limit per — occurrence and aggregate; and 4. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than$1,000,000 limit per occurrence. Any payment of deductible or self-insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the Attorney. All required policies shall be provided on an"occurrence"basis except professional liability insurance (if required), which shall be provided on a"claims-made"basis. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Attorney and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance policies. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-4 (December 6,2000) The Attorneys Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The Attorneys insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City shall be given thirty(30)days prior written notice by certified mail,return receipt requested, of any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage. The City also reserves its unqualified right to require at any time and for any reason, proof of coverage in the form of a duplicate of the insurance policy with all endorsements as evidence of coverage. 9. Indemnification. The Attorney shall indemnify,defend, and hold the City, its elected officials,officers and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever arising out of performance of the Attorney's obligations pursuant to the Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising our of errors and omissions of the Attorney and/or by reason of accident, injury or death caused to persons or property of any kind occurring, except to the extent they are caused by the fault or neglect of the City. 10. Nondiscrimination. In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement, the Attorney, or any person acting on behalf of such, shall not, by reason of race, religion, color, sex,national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, discriminate against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. Attorney shall execute the attached City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Declaration, Comply with City Administrative Policy 1.2, and upon completion of the contract work, file the attached Compliance Statement. 11. Compensation. a. Payment for Services: The City shall pay the Attorney for services rendered under this Agreement as follows: AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-5 (December 6,2000) The City shall provide to Attorney for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($264,000.00) per year to be paid at the rate of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS ($22,000.00)per month. Attorney shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Attorney's compensation hereunder shall be prorated based upon the number of months and portions of months which have elapsed between the commencement of the year and the effective date of termination. b. Appeals. The Attorney shall handle appeals taken by indigent defendants, regardless of whether the Attorney represented said defendant at trial. This service is to be included within the Scope of Services described in Section 1 of this Agreement and the Compensation provided for in Section I l(a) above. C. Miscellaneous Costs. The City agrees to reimburse the Attorney for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. d. Billing. The Attorney shall bill the City, in care of the City's Legal Department, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter: (i) for the monthly installment set forth in subsection I I(a)above; and (ii) for all costs incurred by the Attorney under subsection I I(c) above for the previous month or months. Notwithstanding the reporting requirements of Section 17 of this Agreement, the Attorney shall submit with the monthly bill, a report that sets forth the number of cases to which the Attorney was appointed. The submission of the report with the monthly bill is a condition of payment under this Agreement. The City shall make payments on or before the 20''day of the month following the month for which services were rendered with the first payment due February 20, 2001; provided, that any billing not received by the City's Legal AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-6 (December 6,1000) Department on or before the fourth working day of the month shall not be due and payable until the City's next billing period. 12. Discovery Provided. The City shall provide Attorney one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case. 13. No Assignments or Subcontracts. No assignment or transfer of this Agreement nor of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent, except that Attorney may assign this Agreement to another entity naming N. Scott Stewart as a partner without the prior written consent of the City. 14. Attorney Conflict. In the event the representation of a defendant hereunder raises a conflict of interest such that the Attorney cannot represent the defendant, said defendant shall be promptly referred to the Kent Municipal Court for further assignment. 15. Termination. a. For Cause. City or Attorney may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party fails to perform its obligations as described in this Agreement and such failure has not been corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. b. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties: Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such parry's reasonable control such as but not limited to acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party for necessary budgetary reasons may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving written notice to the other party at least ninety(90) days prior to the end of any calendar year during the term of the Agreement. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-7 (December 6,2000) 16. Amendments. No modification or amendment of the provisions of this _ Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto. 17. Reports. At the end of every third month during the term of this Agreement, Attorney shall provide the City a full accounting of all cases assigned and all in-court appointments made during that three-month period, segregated for each month. These itemized quarterly reports to the City shall contain the number of cases to which the Attorney was appointed, a breakdown of the types of criminal charges to which the Attorney was appointed and a list of cases in which a notice of appeal was filed. Such reports shall be submitted to the City within ten (10) calendar days from the end of each quarter. The Attorney shall have the option of submitting monthly itemized reports in lieu of quarterly reports. 18. Status of Attorney. This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of the Attorney as an independent contractor and Attorney will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. The Attorney and/or its subcontractor(s) shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Attorney and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 19. Case Load Limits. The Attorney shall establish case load limits for attorneys assigned to perform services under this Agreement that ensure effective representation of each and every client. 20. Compliance with Laws. The Attorney shall be in compliance with applicable state, federal, and city laws and regulations. 21. Additional Services. The Attorney may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in section 1 of this Agreement. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES-8 (December 6,2000) Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. 22. Notices. All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Kent: Attorney: Mayor N. Scott Stewart City of Kent Stewart,Beall, and MacNicols, P.S. 220 Fourth Ave. S. 655 W. Smith Street, Suite 210 Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98 23. Entire Agreement. This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties and may not be enlarged, modified, or altered except in writings signed by the parties and endorsed herein. 24. Duplicate Originals. This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. CITY OF KENT ATTORNEY Print Name: Jim White Print Name: Title: Mayor Title: Dated: Dated: ATTEST: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Roger A. Lubovich, City Attorney r:!C��s`nvaF�woaaweuuerm.e�o�.ao AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES -9 (December 6,2000) DECLARATION _ CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY The City of Kent is committed to conform to Federal and State laws regarding equal opportunity. As such all contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who perform work with relation to this contract shall comply with the regulations of the City's equal employment opportunity policies. The following questions specifically identify the requirements the City deems necessary for any contractor, subcontractor or supplier on this specific contract to adhere to. An affirmative response is required on all of the following questions for this contract to be valid and binding. If any contractor, subcontractor or supplier willfully misrepresents themselves with regard to the directives outlines, it will be considered a breach of contract and it will be at the City's sole determination regarding suspension or termination for all or part of the contract; The questions are as follows: I. I have read the attached City of Kent administrative policy number 1.2. 2. During the time of this contract I will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, age, or the presence of all sensory,mental or physical disability. 3. During the time of this contract the prime contractor will provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 4. During the time of the contract I, the prime contractor, will actively consider hiring and promotion of women and minorities. 5. Before acceptance of this contract, an adherence statement will be signed by me, the Prime Contractor, that the Prime Contractor complied with the requirements as set forth above. By signing below, I agree to fulfill the five requirements referenced above. Dated this day of 2000. By: For: Title: Date: AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES- 10 (December 6,1000) CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NUMBER: 1.2 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1998 SUBJECT: MINORITY AND WOMEN SUPERSEDES: April 1, 1996 CONTRACTORS APPROVED BY Jim White, Mayor POLICY: Equal employment opportunity requirements for the City of Kent will conform to federal and state laws. All contractors, subcontractors, consultants and suppliers of the City must guarantee equal employment opportunity within their organization and, if holding contracts with the City amounting to $10,000 or more within any given year, must take the following affirmative steps: 1. Provide a written statement to all new employees and subcontractors indicating commitment as an equal opportunity employer. 2. Actively consider for promotion and advancement available minorities and women. Any contractor, subcontractor, consultant or supplier who willfully disregards the City's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements shall be considered in breach of contract and subject to suspension or termination for all or part of the contract. Contract Compliance Officers will be appointed by the Directors of Planning, Parks, and Public Works Departments to assume the following duties for their respective departments. 1. Ensuring that contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and suppliers subject to these regulations are familiar with the regulations and the City's equal employment opportunity policy. 2. Monitoring to assure adherence to federal, state and local laws,policies and guidelines. AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES- 11 (December 6,2000) CITY OF KENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This form shall be filled out AFTER COMPLETION of this project by the Contractor awarded the contract. I, the undersigned, a duly represented agent of Company, hereby acknowledge and declare that the before-mentioned company was the prime contract for the contract known as that was entered into on the (date) , between the firm I represent and the City of Kent. I declare that I complied fully with all of the requirements and obligations as outlined in the City of Kent Administrative Policy 1.2 and the Declaration City of Kent Equal Employment Opportunity Policy that was part of the before-mentioned contract. Dated this day of , 2000. By: For: Title: Date: �TMUSRLL WWUBIJC1Civ�Jn`gW6VWlicDdm A�A AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES- 12 (December 6,2000) Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION APPOINTMENT - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Council President ' s appointment of Kent City Councilmember Tim Clark to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. He will replace Councilmember Tom Brotherton whose term expired. Councilmember Clark' s new appointment will continue until 1/1/2002 . 3 . EXHIBITS • Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President Orr (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Y KENT MEMORANDUM WASHINGTON TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DATE: DECEMBER 5,2000 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION I have appointed Kent City Councilmember Tim Clark to serve as a member of the Kent Human Services Commission. He will replace Councilmember Tom Brotherton whose term expired. Councilmember Clark's new appointment will continue until I/I/2002. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE APPOINTMENT - CONFIRM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Council President ' s appointment of Kent City Councilmember Tom Brotherton to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force . He will replace Councilmember Judy Woods, whose term expired. Councilmember Brother' s new appointment will continue until 1/1/2004 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President Orr (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6Z KENT MEMORANDUM WASHINGTON TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: DECEMBER 5,2000 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE I have appointed Kent City Councilmember Tom Brotherton to serve as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver Task Force. He will replace Councilmember Judy Woods, whose term expired. Councilmember Brotherton's new appointment will continue until 1/1/2004. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REAPPOINTMENT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint- ment of Marvin Eckfeldt to continue serving as a member of the Regional Justice Citizens Advisory Committee. His new appointment will continue until 12/31/2003 3 . EXHIBITS• Memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6AA KENT MEMORANDUM WASHINGTON TO: LEONA ORR, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: MAYOR JIM WHITE DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO RJC CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE I have reappointed Marvin Eckfeldt to continue serving as a member of the RJC Citizens Advisory Committee. His new appointment will continue until 12/31/2003. I submit this for your confirmation. jb Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: URBAN SEPARATOR FRAMEWORK POLICY AMENDMENT CPA-2000-1 KIVA #2002596 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their October 23rd meeting, the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of text and map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes to recognize Urban Separators . King County' s Countywide Planning Policy No. LU-27 defines urban separators as low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. 3 . EXHIBITS: staff report to Land Use and Planning Board dated September 25, 2000, minutes of September 25, 2000, and October 16 and October 23, 2000; current staff memo dated 12/5/00 with colored maps 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Planning Board (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember 6moves, Councilmember i.n seconds to forward the Land Use and Planning Board ' s recommendation to the City Council Planning Committee for review and recommendation back to the full City Council . DISCUSSION: ACTION: TO'- Council Agenda Item No. 7A KEN• T MEMORANDUM W A S H I N G T O N December 12, 2000 COMMUNITY TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR, DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING SERVICES RE: URBAN SEPARATORS #CPA-2000-1 Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP Manager MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2000 Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Ave.S. Per the City Council's direction at their July 5, 2000 meeting, the Land Use and Kent,WA 98032-5895 Planning Board held three public hearings on Urban Separators. At their October Location Address: 23, 2000 meeting, the Board passed unanimously the following recommendation 400 West Gowe on Urban Separators: Kent,WA 98032 Approve staff s recommendations for text and map amendments as Fax::253-856-6454 staff 454 Ph253-856- presented in the sta report dated September 25, 2000 under Fax Option 2B. This motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Option 2B includes all properties designated on Map Exhibit A entitled "Kent Vicinity Urban Separators", with the additions and deletions of properties as shown on Map Exhibits B, C and D. The motion includes an amendment whereby there will be no downzoning of properties presently zoned higher than SR-1 within the urban separator. This motion includes a text amendment under Goals and Policies LU-20.2 to delete the existing text and replace it with the following: Allow amendments to the Urban Separators only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with King County 1994 Policy update of the Comprehensive Plan, or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety. Because of the complexity of the issue, staff requests committee discussion of the Board motion to occur prior to full Council consideration and vote. We recommend the City Council forward the issue of Urban Separators to the Planning Committee. However, staff will be prepared for a presentation should the City Council desire one at the December 12a'meeting. Because of the large amount of material that is part of the file on urban separators, staff has included in the City Council packet basic information needed to familiarize the Council with the issue. However, a complete packet including exhibits from the public meetings and technical appendices is available in the Council's Conference Room. CA\cb\P:\urbanseparatorcc.doc I gqugl u•f�,.� INI noil i y 6 11■NiM. Mull f } 0i`Ny��r;}S'•+ ".'r+• T ■ �1 ilrlw'\ la.+l.��� 3lr n� �. �■'' �� �, t ;f �.�'�`� �q q�l f � o- �w � t lil� ��� ^ ' 71 I 1■u 111F1■LIItIN1�S �11�1 �9� II lz AMON mg, - r ,�-•1,�` � k�`�ti.�b �: t o z � - art+ ; '-�,�} _�' 11�� =�{.,� _"I.�}1 IF 1•nnrl��ri �' ��`.+t-IT' I�^�s�° � ..,r`� wJ�x®r lltl-�����1�. '. i q yiy I _ 1� ?F ��=^.���f Yt}SET ''���15 tz`� 7�q�WI/� ��a ��� �� , � l,•I "� $�y li- • 1�1 f zy 1C31LL�gIIINq. .v 1'' ,. Z y7��E..q�li�'�;�"`�-1 �faL•■E 1 , -r+-4r k ty .-i-N♦ ■ 1! �F �� n ism-, 1 M r � I�LM.11 IFL" r��.■-.—g E -vk,Qa: j t-c. ... '■'1q�.nr lliil�iu7■T.,� '.�!�r�.■' �.i11 V�,lwu �l , :h RIF �c77\.-'� `tvi���,y.� 1111 hwl WiY�• �� i 111 rls. � �jn■�IWI�Iq y I 1 -W1. 1■ -1175iC P r.r r rr M.-�. "��11L_�I'•Yllll�al'�.1111r��Y• -: �` _ I�'I - a W sgll / i _ rYL"z M.aI� �1�?1L"1114'i 3 M�a rr •/`i.+' , n1 i9r � - R��rT�l i.■e.,Im:WIi'1�'11tl111N1xd"�i��`� ,�j,�:� �=' a � I 1 . rwl� h ■ti aJk_.5P � I ��Iwlrui� �_rr NI�Iiii11��10 { a OMP '�� ri :•= sir,. ►I� �.. i�� W al' '��i��' � ram,,,, rtltl■� f. --c �� � � �... �... oil it 1 rM UP i NOW a it ® s� •�i■r�;7+G�r��- Q.- a a�m • ' � �.,_� F■•Z' qi!\, tom_._� �,e,�l". �■•it■QHrla � r— �. illlll� �n a MINK • �? R� ♦lre�er +se.-s--I ����R�'.! i r>.S� /r.u��G � r �•. la�l�•■ et■�,�a M cc cam\ �� fB /� `t � r .i sib r s� _ _':ao �' 4ll �'��'!!� cs a►��.rl ���� �•� I�ieyl�fiFlf.�`�T%�_ _.. I�'�!�fi\.����®�'rr�■Ae �w��3�1.r. ��I Iy4�.`e I `°/>,/l�J%i��W���� `G. ♦ c . ■ r.■i c.ay ltr �y '� �� ra4M.r•u!s T�A��. r.1/�ttv V JY li�I '�P r-�,��■\R � � P 9l�.�. $ I� ° �" /Ir■J!■E3�Y�s 'ym sv.rio•■° .a eR■■V/, �� �tB'�i -�4�C�i L�yV..slssr`R!!'aR!°� iE ��fir,r•., ra y •!�� :ti\`�r4, w6R1.�2L7,•sa.S.Iifli.11■ u s.�'r.�� . �'� �r!�rl�llerlrh '�►• +�\a/'i•� — i,%• •C - filr�l-e ►�t, r� INDOOR ■� ■�lillfflG�Jri�� � i.We aQ�•/��Z I ire rril®l�iii�' -• .t'�, �I !�r5�� r. 7■r,�s 1� �v �Q����ir�� �� i nan =ie.i =rIf11I111E1I11■ �- °°Syr—IJ� :Gll'R'#■F �i°. \t44i w�•�"�!°�fFF,O�i� iiC°°i@`ed '!►_ N1/J' rsetZ�t/ S ���♦ -I�f./ice �� ay." ,��� ��II try� �t��� JJ o =°°% _ -� ,�,fl�G►�lIY15IvJI■�' ta-�Y?r�,�l���� �- <� aa!` I�I iw Diu%•,ti' I G� i .w^Cn `�Fa►MINNp� � r■. ■uiEi'e.a�4�!d`�f=! e�l■G a Ii p �C�'� -�--- � ��.U�alar.c■.na � �' �l. ���F�n�Idr�E ti ■��+:• ate. % � f►e ���1��'iFF�il'.��y f�i� ��% '�� �® ^�::"yiii rl .o�'w.�� �i1M��artq•irs arts rGi 111 _ ii�:I% .1• _ Blaag u , - 6. � l � C 21110111111111/ i giga! s � `hY�•i�I�.ia�!:�:ry�. m 1111 Milan�.��Irj �rid�,r+a�ql I I �� 1� '�jj1 r.t Ilr■ J � �. : s'' A ► �l.., y�.�� R sm InAS IV Noun ME HIM Oft Ev HI �11� I�II"o'�dBUlliid " � �� 1?JG■It �H iRa ;, (l�I�illll®R 11 i RINI � - II'! �■■.mod. �Ii r■■■dam. ®sif /111��� nnil n■ii■i■e�ry '- 161��f11 � ����� ■■■■ _ Lfi/11111 ■rrr�r�„ra 1 , 61/Iiy��:�si�aw•��� • KENT W A S H I N G T O N STAFF REPORT September 25, 2000 PLANNING SERVICES TO: JON JOHNSON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE & Fred N.Sattemtrom,AICP Manage PLANNING BOARD Phone:253-856-5454 FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER Fax:253-856-6454 RE: #CPA-2000-1 (KIVA#2002596)URBAN SEPARATORS 220 Fourth Ave.S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 Introduction On February 15, 2000,two of the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment applications for 1999 were tabled by the Kent City Council and sent to the Planning Committee for discussion and determination of the City's policy on urban separators. The applications were Caimes #CPA-99-3(A) located at 14845 SE 264`h Street and Pacific Industries #CPA-99-3(D) located at 24039 146`h Place SE, both located in an area designated Urban Separator in the King County Comprehensive Plan. The matter was referred to the Planning Committee which held meetings on the urban separator issue on March 6, April 3 and May 1, 2000, with additional discussion occurring at their June 5`b meeting. On May 0, the Planning Committee voted to forward to the City Council a recommendation to endorse Alternative Option 3B in the staff report to recognize the Urban Separator framework policy but allow for local flexibility in identifying lands which would fulfill the objectives of countywide planning policy LU-27. The City Council held meetings on June 6 and July 5, 2000. At the July 5`h meeting, the City Council voted to forward the following principles and guidelines to the Land Use and Planning Board for consideration and inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code as appropriate: A. PRINCIPLES: That the following principles relating to the Urban Separators be adopted: 1. Urban Separators provide benefits to the citizens of Kent and should be recognized and adopted with the current densities established for such by the County. 2. New construction should not degrade existing nearby levels of isolation, tranquility and environmental protection within existing urban areas. 3. The ability of property owners to develop their property within existing standards should not be less than their neighbors as long as it does not degrade existing nearby levels of Urban Separator isolation and protection. B. GUIDELINES: That the Land Use and Planning Board consider and make recommendations as follows: 1. Establish Urban Separator goals,which could include: Promoting animal habitat and connectivity, Protecting identified listed endangered species habitat, sensitive areas, and wetlands, Protecting the peace and tranquility of recreational areas, Protecting geologically unstable areas, such as steep slopes, and Promoting water table recharge, 2. Review the areas of concern the Planning Committee identified in the existing Urban Separator in the county plan, 3. Develop a recommendation as to the appropriate Urban Separator boundary,using the Kent Urban Separator principles, X `xa r I Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 4. Consider whether clustering could be optional and adjust the proper zoning designation accordingly, if property should be moved out of an Urban Separator, and 5. Provide a recommendation for the proper zoning and any other conditions that would meet city Urban Separator goals and minimize restrictions on the property, if any property should be added to an Urban Separator. Background: The 1990 State of Washington Growth Management Act ("GMA") under RCW 36.70A.160 declares, "Each...city...shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation,wildlife habitat,trails,and connection of critical areas..." The GMA under RCW 36.70A.100 requires coordination and consistency among the comprehensive plans of each county or city that has, in part, common borders or related regional issues. Further, counties are to adopt, in cooperation with cities, county-wide planning policies that provide a framework from which city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted, in order to ensure the consistency required in RCW 36.70A.100. Countywide Planning Policy No. LU-27 defines urban separators as "...low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 10 year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local cr--^ern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas w. jut King County review and concurrence." The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, under IE(B) contains the following narrative on Urban Separators: "The Countywide Planning Policies call for the County and cities to implement Urban Separators. Different from the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands,these are low-density areas within the Urban Growth Area that create open space corridors, provide a visual contrast to continuous development and reinforce the unique identities of communities. Urban separators can play a significant role in preserving environmentally sensitive areas and in providing habitat for fish and wildlife...They also provide recreational benefits, such as parks and trails, and meet the Growth Management Act's requirement for greenbelts and open space in the Urban Growth Area...Urban Separators may be protected by public acquisition of land or by incentives, such as increased density in exchange for land dedications in conjunction with development, and by regulating development in or near environmentally sensitive areas." The narrative surrounds Policy U-307, as revised by King County in 1997, which reads as follows(changes from the 1994 version show strikethrough and underline): U-307 King County sketddshall develop a Program to designate permanent Urban Separators within the Urban Growth Area a4by December 31, 1998, and shall include changes necessary to the King Colinty Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning maps in the 1999 Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. King County shall work in cooperation with cities during future planning efforts to develop additional Urban Separators, based upon thefollowing criteria: a. The land can serve as wildlife habitat, is an environmentally sensitive area as defined in King County s environmental protection regulation or serves to link such designated sensitive areas, is comprised of natural resource lands contains a major elevation change or other visible landscape feature, is a part of a Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Area, public park, open space or trail, or contains historic resources found to be eligible.for county landmark designation; or b. The land will help define community or municipal identities and boundaries. Similarly, the 1997 revision to the King County Comprehensive Plan contained Policy U-503 under V(B) Residential Densities, which reads as follows: 2 Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 U-503 In the Urban Growth Area, King County should use regulations, incentives, open space acquisition, or, where these measures are not adequate, King County may use low density zoning to protect jloodplains, critical aquifer recharge areas, Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Areas, high value wetlands and unstable slopes from degradation, and to encourage linking these environmental features into a network of open space,fish and wildlife habitat and Urban Separators. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.210, the City of Kent ratified the Countywide Planning Policies, including LU- 27, on November 15, 1994 via Resolution No. 1413. It is the opinion of the City of Kent Legal Department (see attached memorandum dated January 20, 2000) that "...the county-wide planning policies cannot provide substantive direction or restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted comprehensive plan and with the overall framework of the adopted county-wide planning policies" One can argue that within the City of Kent Urban Growth Area, a density of 3 units per acre still is "low density",the framework designation of Countywide i Planning Policy LU-27. Utilizing the opinion of the Legal Department, the authorization provided by the City Council on July 18, 2000 under Resolution No. 1574 that declared an emergency to pursue an amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan incorporating policies relating to urban separators, and the City Council's principles and guidelines that are referenced in the Introduction, the Land Use & Planning Board is now considering the issue of urban separators. ; When the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 18, 1995, there were no lands within its city limits that were designated Urban Separator and, therefore, there was no immediate need for policies relating to urban separators. However, there were lands within Kent's Potential Annexation Area that were designated Urban Separator. Those urban separators in Kent's Potential Annexation Area are described in the Soos Creek ! Community Plan ("SCCP"). The Soos Creek Community Plan Update and the Soos Creek Area Zoning that were adopted by the King County Council on December 17, 1991 (Ordinance No. 10197) contain numerous references,policies, and zoning designations for urban separators. Narrative in the Executive Proposed document j states (p.30), "...In the Soos Creek community planning area a wide variety of land uses are used to form urban separators, including existing and proposed parks and trails, lakes and wetlands, rivers and streams, and other ; fragile areas. The Soos Creek Area Zoning will implement the urban separators through the use of P-suffix 1 conditions." The narrative is followed by Policies A-5 and A-6 that read as follows: A-5 King County shall establish urban separators in the Soos Creek community planning area to define the urban growth area boundaries between the Cities of Renton, Kent and Auburn through the use of zoning and required clustering of development. A-6 King County shall work with the cities of Auburn, Kent and Renton to ensure that urban separators and open space corridors continue to be maintained as such is(sic"if) and when these areas are annexed in a city. Policy R-6 of Chapter 4 Residential Development reads as follows: R-6 All subdivisions reviewed under thisplan that arepartially or totally within a designated urban separator or are adjacent to such areas should provide open space linkages within or to the separator. i Narrative preceding Policies P-21 and P-22 of Chapter 8 Parks and Open Space states (p.128), "...In the Soos Creek community planning area urban separators maintain corridors of natural landscape and habitat for wildlife; preserve open space opportunities in areas already designated urban;provide visual relief from continuous urban development; and promote and maintain the physical basis for defining future urban growth area boundaries and visual identify between greater Renton, Kent, and Auburn. The SCCP proposes two urban separators; the northern separator separating greater Renton and Kent which links Big Soos Creek Park, Single Family zoned property, Panther Lake and its wetlands,the Renton Watershed,sensitive areas,and the north portion of the slopes of the ridge line defining the plateau from the valley. The southern separator separating greater Kent and Auburn includes the Kent Watershed, Olsen Creek, low density single family zoned property, the Green River and its 3 Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 flood plains and the steep sensitive wooded slopes of the ridge line defining the plateau from the west valley...The western ridge of the Soos Creek Plateau constitutes a unique and irreplaceable community asset. The strong dominant landform and wooded character present there combine to provide distinct areas of contrast in terms of texture and color from the normal pattern of urban development. By virtue, of this contrast, the western ridge functions as a strong visual boundry(sic) or edge for both the valley cities of Auburn, Kent and Renton and the Soos Creek Plateau Community and a view corridor for the valley cities and Highway 167." Policies P-21 and P-22 read as follows: P-21 Urban separators should be established in areas designated on the community plan map through zoning regulation to provide visual relief from continuous development,provide important linkages for wildlife habitat, and maintain a visual identify between distinct communities. The Soos Creek Area Zoning will implement the Urban separators. P-22 There are areas within the urban separators that are especially suitable for park sites for recreational use by present and anticipated population. King County should develop a trail and/or park system utilizing the preserved open space within the urban separators. Chapter 2 of the Soos Creek Area Zoning applies the Urban Separator P-suffix to "all properties shown as SC on the Area Zoning map and SC-P on the Benson Center Map." The SC zoning designation on the Soos Creek Adopted Area Zoning is defined as Suburban Cluster, 1 unit per acre. The following conditions are stated to implement Policies P-21 and P-22 described above: 1. All subdivisions permitted under this plan, within the Urban Separator boundary (see Area Zoning map) shall link its open space with that of the adjacent properties unless conditions such as sensitive areas prevent reasonable linkage of open spaces. 2. -- All proposed road locations through or on the western ridge shall be reviewed to insure minimum grade disturbance and minimum cut-and-fill activity, particularly in those areas most visible due to slope, topographic or other conditions. The Executive Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 dated March 1, 2000 again contains several policies regarding Urban Separators — RP401 protecting Urban Separators upon annexation, U-102 accommodating Urban Separators within Urban Growth Areas, U-115 proposing links of "...environmental features into a network of open space, fish and wildlife habitat and Urban Separators...", R-236 preserving the Lower Green River Agricultural Production District as an Urban Separator, and P-112 through P-114 defining Urban Separators and proposing to "...include and link parks and other lands that contain significant environmentally sensitive features, provide wildlife habitat or critical resource protection, contain defining physical features, or-contain historic resources...link with and enhance King County's Urban Separator corridors..." and to preserve Urban Separators "...through park, trail and open space acquisitions, incentive programs...and regulatory measures." Further, Policy C-I017 of Chapter 8 Community Plans states, "King County should coordinate with the City of Seattle, WSDOT, and other jurisdictions to link major elements of the open space system including the Cedar River, Lake Desire, Big Soos Creek, SR-18 and the Green River trail systems...". The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element contains objectives and policies relating to Community Separators. Objective LU-PP states, "Provide physical and visual distinctions both within Renton and between edges of urban growth." Policy LU-271 defines the function of community separators to: "a. reinforce the character of the City's neighborhoods,b. establish boundaries between the City's urban growth area and other areas; c. separate high density urban land uses from areas of low density, semi-rural and conservation uses; and, d. protect environmentally sensitive or critical areas." Policy LU-272 provides for the following locational criteria for community separators: "a. Individual and interconnecting natural features, critical areas, I 'ic and private open space and water features; b. Existing and proposed individual and interconnecting parks, boulevards,utility easements,and other rights-of-way, and agricultural uses. C.Areas which provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban uses." The City of Covington is proposing in both its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to protect and keep King County's Urban Separator designations,to have a unique zoning designation for Urban Separators(at one unit per acre), and to acquire land to expand the Soos Creek Trail. The City of Auburn has no reference in its Land Use and Planning Board September 25, 2000 Comprehensive Plan to Urban Separators, although Auburn has regulations to protect sensitive areas and has designated watersheds as low-density areas. Auburn also has pulled back its Urban Growth Area to exclude King County's designated Agricultural Production District,which lies within the Urban Separator. In the Land Use Element of their Comprehensive Plan, the City of Black Diamond refers to urban separators under 5.4.3, first paragraph, as part of their open space proposal. Written information from the cities of Renton, Covington,and Black Diamond are attached to this report. "Zoning History There are approximately 225 parcels (18,168,441 square feet or 417 acres) within the Kent City limits that were designated Urban Separator on the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and that were under private ownership. There were 10 parcels (1,773,442 square feet or 40.71 acres) under public ownership. These parcels were incorporated by the City of Kent as part of the Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexations, effective January 1, 1996 and July 1, 1997 respectively. After analysis and public hearings on appropriate land use and zoning designations for the areas, the Kent City Council applied Land Use Map designations ranging from Open Space to SF6, with compatible zoning designations. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations in some areas have been revised upward since the annexation zoning was first established. Furthermore, the City has approved plat applications corresponding to the zoning designations that were applied either through the initial annexation zoning or through subsequent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning amendments. Following is a list of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning amendments and plats that have occurred in the Urban Separator areas: 1. Fortunato#CPA-99-3(G)-6 acres from SF3 to SF6—located at 27842 and 27854 132nd Avenue SE. 2. Clasen#CPA-99-3(C) & CPZ-99-3 - 11.21 acres from SF3 to SF6 and zoning from SR3 to SR6—located at 13602 SE 282'Street. 3. Ciasen/Dinsdale #CPA-97-3(F) & CPZ-97-3(F) - 53.5 acres from SF3 to SF6 and zoning from SR3 to SR6 — located east of 132d Avenue SE between SE 276" and SE 282' Streets. (Approximately 13.7 acres are included in the South Ridge Subdivision mentioned below.) 4. Kingsley Glen Subdivision #SU-99-4 - 12.37 acres into 37 single-family residential lots - only portion of it lies within Urban Separator - saved through sensitive area tract. Located west of 144d' Avenue SE, south of SE 276`h Street. Overall density approximately 3 units per gross acre. 5. South Ridge Subdivision#SU-98-4- 38.61 acres into 148 single family residential lots-only portion of it lies within Urban Separator - saved through sensitive area tract. Located between 140 and 144d' Avenues SE at SE 282"d Street. Overall density approximately 3.8 units per gross acre. 6. Sohol Short Plat#TSP-97-28 - 3.58 acres into 9 single-family residential lots - tentative only-no official short plat application has been filed. Located at 12648 SE 282"d Street. Proposed overall density of approximately 2.5 units per gross acre. 7. Foxhall Short Plat #SP-97-19 - 1.75 acres into 4 single-family residential lots - approximately south 50 feet designed sensitive area easement. Located at 27313 135d' Avenue SE. Overall density approximately 2.3 units per gross acre. There currently are 155 parcels (11,435,851 square feet or 262.5 acres) within the Kent city limits that lie within the Urban Separator and that have a zoning designation greater than one unit per acre (152 parcels, 11,205,427 square feet, 257.24 acres private vs. 3 parcels, 230,424 square feet, 5.29 acres public). Attached to this report are maps of the parcels designated Urban Separator with overlays of sensitive areas and other areas of relevance. Options As stated in the City Council motion that forwarded this issue to the Land Use and Planning Board, Urban Separators provide benefits to the citizens of Kent and should be recognized. Property owners also have a right to develop their property. Also needing to be included in the consideration of Urban Separators is the GMA requirement to meet Kent's housing targets. Therefore, in consideration of the Principles and Guidelines of the City Council, of the countywide planning policies that were ratified by the City of Kent, and of the requirements 5 Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 of the Growth Management Act, the following options are proposed for consideration by the Land Use and Planning Board: Option 1—No Change:This option would keep the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and zoning designations as they currently exist. There would be no goal or policy in the Kent Comprehensive Plan referencing urban separators or statement of the purpose of urban separators. Countywide Planning Policy No. LU-27 regarding urban separators would be applied through existing sensitive area regulations. It is likely that with future annexations, King County would require interlocal agreements with the City of Kent to protect the Urban Separator areas. Option 2A — County Overlay: This option would accept entirely the King County-designated Urban Separator area,change the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map to reflect a density of one unit per acre, and develop definition,benefits, goals and policies related to urban separators,recognize the framework of the countywide planning policy regarding urban separators, and propose implementing regulations for urban separators. Clustering would be proposed as one method of preserving urban separator areas. This would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses that are currently being prepared. Option 2B — County Overlay, With Adjustments: This option is similar to Option 2A, with the exception that certain areas either already developed as a residential subdivision or with vested land use or development applications in the City of Kent would be removed from the urban separator. Also deleted from the urban separator would be the area north of SE 282"d Street, between 1240' Avenue SE and 128h Avenue SE (if ex%pded). To be added to the urban separator would be one additional parcel north of SE 272"d Street that is ct Iitly zoned MH-P,Mobile Home Park. This would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses that are currently being prepared. Option 3—Local Rezoning Option: This option would provide definition,benefits, goals and policies related to urban separators, recognize the framework of the countywide planning policy regarding urban separators, consider clustering as one method of preserving urban separator areas, and propose implementing regulations for urban separators. The Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would be customized for Kent to reflect an Urban Separator designation utilizing the proposed goals and policies, and the zoning designation on Urban Separator lands would be one unit per acre. Areas outside of the city limits of Kent but within Kent's Potential Annexation Area would maintain the King County designation of Urban Separator on the Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A clustering ordinance would be developed to provide an incentive for preserving the Urban Separator lands. All lands with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations greater than one unit per acre would be changed to reflect the one unit per acre designation. This would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses that. are currently being prepared. Option 4 —Local Option, No Rezoning: Option 4 is the same as Option 3, with the exception that those lands lying within the Urban Separator in the city limits of Kent,including the lands to be added to the Urban Separator, that have existing Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning designations greater than one unit per acre would not be changed. This would affect the land capacity in relationship to Kent's housing targets and would be considered in the benchmarking analyses that are currently being prepared. Staff proposals for changes to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and Subdivision Code to implement O=tions 2, 3 and 4 are attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending Option 2B for the following reasons: Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 Option 1 —No Change: This option would not implement the principles and guidelines forwarded by the City Council to the Land Use and Planning Board. Option 2A — County Overlay: This option does not customize the urban separator to take into account current land use patterns, including open space corridors, or vested applications. Option 3—Local Rezoning Option: Although this option customizes the urban separator for Kent, it adds into the urban separator those lands that are existing parks, and those lands along SR-18 for which staff believes it would be best to establish a regional approach to transportation corridor open space prior to enacting a policy exclusively for Kent. The Executive-Recommended King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 already contains a policy to have King County"coordinate with the City of Seattle, WSDOT,and other jurisdictions to link major elements of the open space system including the Cedar River, Lake Desire, Big Soos Creek, SR-18 and the Green River trail system". Planning staff would welcome the opportunity to join in a regional roundtable on this issue. Option 3 also proposes deleting from the urban separator an area north of SE 282nd Street, between 132nd and 144`h Avenues SE, which would delete a significant linkage of streams, wetlands, parkland, and sensitive wildlife habitat. Option 4—Local Option, No Rezoning: Although similar to Option 3, this option is significantly different in that it recognizes urban separators but does nothing to protect or increase open space. Because the zoning designations are not changed from what currently exists, the only effect the option would have is to restrict approval of future requests for increased density. i Option 213—County Overlay,With Adjustments: Option 2B follows the countywide planning policy related to urban separators, yet customizes the designation in consideration of current land uses, open space corridors and vested applications. The area north of SE 282'd Street, between 124th Avenue SE and 1280 Avenue SE (if extended) would be deleted from the urban separator because it is surrounded on three sides by existing j subdivisions and does not appear to include significant sensitive area. However, it does abut urban separator just outside Kent's city limits. it Those parcels deleted from the area north of SE 282d Street,between 132d and 1440 Avenues SE are parcels that have vested subdivision approvals from the City of Kent. They include the South Ridge, Kingsley Glen, and Foxhall subdivisions. The remainder urban separator within that area would be maintained because of the connectivity of streams and wetlands in the area, because it lies within a established territory for sensitive wildlife, and because it provides a connection to Meridian Glen Park at its northern border. This urban separator would be classified an open space within an urban growth area,rather than between an urban growth area. Also deleted from the urban separator under Option 2B is one of the phases of a developed subdivision called Loe Estates,just south of SE 2400' Street, east of 1440' Avenue SE. (The other phases are not currently designated urban separator.) Added to the urban separator would be one parcel just north of SE 272"d Street that currently is zoned ME-P, Mobile Home Park. This is a parcel with redevelopment potential that is located partially within a j 100-year flood plain close to Big Soos Creek. i i With Option 2B staff recommends that the parcels within the urban separator be changed to SR-1 from their 1 current designations of SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and MH-P. The impact to housing targets would be,at a broad brush stroke and without considering sensitive areas, a loss of approximately 757 housing units when including the mobile home park and 654 units excluding the moble home park. With a sensitive areas adjustment of 40%, the loss in housing units would be 454 units including the mobile home park and 392 units excluding the mobile home park. CA/pm S:IPermitlPlanlCompPlanAmdmentsl200012002596-2000•lb-fenal.doc Enclosures cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Manager Brent McFall,Chief Administrative Officer Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 URBAN SEPARATORS Goals & Policies OPTIONS 2,3 & 4 September 25, 2000 LAND USE ELEMENT (Add to existing narrative in this section) NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES Kent is home to approximately five watersheds with major creek systems, all with varying degrees of urban development. The Soos Creek Watershed is a region of approximately 70 square miles and within the Kent City limits includes the Upper Soos Creek and Soosette Creek subbasins. The system has close to 90 miles of streams flowing into the Green River, and the basin includes many wetlands and lakes. The Soos Creek Basin Plan, adopted by King County in January 1992, recommended a combination of tools for basin management aimed at correcting surface water problems and providing protection for the basin's water resources. One of the tools recommended was to maintain rural densities, especially in areas of the Soosette Creek subbasin. Big Soos Creek is a major creek lying within the Green River Basin. The creek meanders in and out of the easterly city limits of Kent and provides a natural open space corridor between the cities of Kent and Co-�ngton and between Urban Growth Areas and Rural Areas of unincorporated King County. Big { Sc. Creek provides significant habitat for fish and wildlife, and it is an area of natural beauty that provides recreational and educational opportunities throughout the region. The Soos Creek Trail, which runs for 4 miles from Gary Grant Park at SE 2081h and 137'h Avenue SE to Lake Meridian Park,provides opportunities for walking,bicycling and horseback riding. The east and west banks of the Green River valley and other unique natural features such as the Olsen Creek canyon provide natural opportunities for urban separators. The eastern plateau in particular provides a natural separation between the cities of Kent and Covington, and between the urban and rural areas of unincorporated King County. The Olsen Creek canyon provides separation between a portion of Kent and Auburn. This separation continues as a result of both natural features and existing land use preservation within the Agricultural Production District of King County. In addition, the wetlands and floodplains of the Northeast Auburn drain, Mill Creek (Auburn) and Mullen Slough limit development potential. The result is a complete east-west corridor of environmental, visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. Goal LU-20 (Change rest of numbering system to accommodate this inserted goal.) — Establish urban separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas. P, :y LU-20.1 — Establish urban separators as low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. Policy LU-20.2 - Allow amendments to urban separators only with the 5-year updates of the Comprehensive Plan, unless an emergency is declared by the City Council. Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 Policy LU-20.3 — Require subdivisions within or adjacent to urban separators to provide open space linkages within or to the urban separator. Policy LU-20.4 — Establish urban separators as links between, and for protection of, sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces or trails, critical aquifer recharge areas, floodplains, high value wetlands, unstable slopes, regionally or locally significant resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat and other unique environmental features. I Policy LU-20.5 — Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies, adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach to Urban Separators. Policy LU-20.6 — Link urban separators within the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Policy LU-20.7 — Encourage well-designed land use patterns, including clustering of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and enhance urban separators. Policy LU-20.8 — Consider funding options, land trusts, purchase of development rights, and other methods for public acquisition of urban separators. 9 Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 URBAN SEPARATORS Zoning Code& Subdivision Code Amendments OPTIONS 2, 3 &4 September 25,2000 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS Definitions 15.02.073 (New Section) Clustering or Cluster Subdivision Clustering .or Cluster Subdivision means a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract or parcel. 15.02.531 (Renumber Other Sections)Urban Separators Urban Separators are low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Notes under SR-1 Development Standards (KCC 15.04.170 & 15.04.180) 1) Where lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator, as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units shall be required to be clustered, subject to the regulations of Kent City Code Chapter 12.04 Subdivisions. The density in a cluster subdivision shall be no greater than the density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole using the maximum density provisions of the zoning district in which it is located. The minimum lot size of individual lots within a cluster subdivision is 2,500 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 30 feet. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of 50% of the non-constrained area of the parcel. The open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts, to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors, and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. Areas which are nonbuildable (creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas, and buffers) shall not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant stands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved as open space in a cluster subdivision. Future development of the open space shall be prohibited by a permanent deed restriction and shall be protected either through dedication to the general public use or by legal arrangements, approved by _ the City of Kent, sufficient to assure its preservation,maintenance and management. Sight obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area. Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 New lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding 8 units. There may be more than one cluster per project. Separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of 120 feet. SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS Definitions Section 12.04.025 Definitions (add definition) Clustering or Cluster Subdivision means a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract or parcel. Urban Separators are low-density lands that define community or municipal identities and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental,visual,recreational and wildlife benefits. New Sections 12.04.263, 12.05.578, and 12.04.778 (Cluster Subdivisions under Type I and II Short Subdivisions and Long Subdivisions) Cluster Subdivisions. A. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in KCC Title 15. These standards include minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signage, etc. B. The following standards shall apply to cluster subdivisions. In addition, the regulation of KCC 12.04.545 through 12.04.570 shall apply unless specifically excepted. 1. Location: The cluster residential development option shall be permitted only in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 2. Permitted Uses: The cluster residential development option shall include only single family residential uses. 3. Minimum Area: No minimum area is established for a cluster residential development. 4. Permitted Density: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 5. Lot Size: In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision is 2,500 square feet. New lots created by any 11 Land Use and Planning Board September 25,2000 subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding 8 units. There may be more than one cluster per project. Separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of 120 feet. 6. Lot Width: The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be 30 feet. 7. Other Development Standards: Development standards other than lot size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residential development is located. 8. Streets, curbs, sidewalks, and utilities: Streets, curbs, sidewalks, and utilities shall be constructed according to City of Kent Construction Standards and the standards and approval criteria listed in the Kent Subdivision Code for Type I and II Short Subdivisions, and Long Subdivisions. 9. Common Open Space: The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of 50%of the non-constrained area of the parcel. The open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured to create urban separators and greenbelts, to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors, and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. Areas which are nonbuildable (creeks,, wetlands, geological hazard areas, and buffers) shall not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant stands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved as open space in a cluster subdivision. Future development of the open space shall be prohibited by a permanent deed restriction and shall be protected either through dedication to the general public use or by legal arrangements, approved by the City of Kent, sufficient to assure its preservation,maintenance and management. CA/pm S.IPemitlPlanlCompPlaalmdments1200012001596-2000-lb-final.doc 12 i i I j I .... NINO no It MI12e� z d N I� a tlii17 ; 'IiUPG�' Y�� �. _ ,�• J��'.clgrkn�y f Tk � c 0 Y ��',< ': •91.mtiS� a-. -[IIII r. 7► gim- Nul, F4yll d -.a7 .- ff,, a, r R 07 `•,-l�f y pp-1 .t_, '_Y; all ILI JON ..ty1 flirt , - •_,�. �" `..- . �+��j_ �_ flow= .,�.. �2�-��i�.TAFI �Lsll�� � 1�. - ism F 'i °' • '�-. II7W �t $x �;•�t�-. �nr�.+._+�zI IN .. I�Eire 7 --sR a x 1�� EV ' Y�Gloss `I �sli � _ $ � C �rN-11��II��!4• 1 �I -°.. � IN '��I� .. III r ,• _h.�II.R. i �_I,_•.�._� v .'�:ylllll �� `mac ��t\� r- �{.4NMI .I- ` �•�°�- ��illi�liiilll4 � F �1. ` 0 g to to �a as a� o 11 rn 'b E `or `r LZIS y' c m ~ E c y °` EC C.4 o aW o c b g€ m Mwro W �e mnm w +� a yZ e� v a m eE m° o� } m LL. z m p7 r S 0 it 5 J WOMEN d �r ��i�,�''�1Y�'..�'�'^:•;::•"` „�' •. ••1•tJ� �' _ _- '���.�ti ii �:Ti75 AYli � �., • _ .. . . .u..L' y K ••. j' 1 ... .i 'N r,_ply, i .i t...�: . �;11...� ,''y �Y% ., T.;y "_ 'r 7� :i '+Y•i�i•4f''w'K�i.;,l I'�N ' •_ !! ' /��.i�� 6i •� � �:�� �..--e • y����R.�K ' .ems i �i I i•j�' t::y•'�., J. •: /' •- • ;'',� ;A 7it.•:Y•..,,•:\ �n';ram L•:_�F�L• °f CJti'.:. .• n,I G. b- oor __�ws...n�i•4~''P ••K.I'1•• 'i••�'.i:F':L!: 1,. �:i14�''��.14,w' � / ra •'ty\+., w/";,• 4,,�.- • ;w/�••^�: /ti�/'/"� V f _ • -'�_'_� ! I\t��l L',1.•!•5 ti''IV,��_ _ •�'�~/w� "" ., �r..;'•r„ I�..rJ/,` *! ,•: ��•� i �{I i11�7''1/.1•�s�l.•:�ti.!.'1 .. '�-1 y e1�• - •' .,3 �.a.i-s"- .i - n Ls''-��1.L1��.\�p,•1, J4 r ,y�.. I ,`,,. /% -~,,I •Y'Ivif. ;',� - 7•• _ :~YC i �:~ti�•: 3It .`r, ��. ��.p' ,•J24.:• �.. ol IL o Ell I�il�� E`jf'yi�ltl �•�` ��jiiji��llry��i :^�E\\o I j wlON / arm N! IN11M♦ El wo lnm got Pled AN 'g1R�r-d'� ��� 3„J���c���G�1�rllll��►So SIR-'[ �.j� �t�� � � �f 7� �i r i IF. I. -s Fr � I s. .. %' I■IU1„'I��.: - !f r r :xtr\�/K e�a f.- �� '�� I/�I 1� 'c. t 1h�z i• 12 ` / -`F f ;`I'''�F S.•-. 11�!!II■f'If1�� Y.c.a 3._7-ri �Yy�t''s �4'-r Y'�� • _3'_y r I V�i%%L�'� i ��.�;; - 1f ■ %��r1111� •r■ 11- - .,�1 I, � 3..� wE papa ,.F �. � - �, ��! i1i7'7+r7 ' � ';�..■rr - ,.�.� ZC YaIF ths`'�E: •t'-`-nze d� �• ;E.�,a�..� Pf� $ !� 11�•' 1'v�Rl�li �� liirlr �.�°'>-r'i��•' r��Et% i �ya�u�- '11�� .R ,► a�� �1r�i�, �� � r..-.C"c �5f`. E `v - .—�Y' /1 ''1�•�� �I ��'�I - I 'f\cli i■UIF91%� q wIN e! �■7 ` -��f 11111 -a it 4F use ate' Irl.�t. ice. 1� 9 rr �..♦�iL m■a:�, t �I� M��N�-,Jr� f�'�r1i. Rfil �� lap . gn r s• ♦j�'i �� I r �•L .Si�.�r .� a ,a:rllo��•r�''f7,,/OI'r1 •• .z at�.a�13/� Rl/a' ��•' II 9Y�' ` '! nr`�\��': nl�� vh\rrY�y �111[II� \wl!?-l.� �� ,'� I I .a f�.91!1��+II. [r ♦�. ilrf Ss ` tom�.- tali ■,rrJ r !/ � i 11 �s��� - .. �i* V �iGl►�r.,'c► cam'}-A.�r.��i %JEya�G._i�.■►�a; tt` ,f19�t■r.ii� - '.�i31•= u 'w. 1'j4pJ�>IrffffUV I �IIII!lE��r•�!' �iur.av•�i.•. I II ■ns d/� -A. �'��d .`,5 L, V���7rf yr` =Lf•� Icy='■: fill VOR op - .. �. �\ ■7f7iRtl�rar .r�l rr7���i��R � ��; ReF..1Ir�.■ �i'1iE��1,lSrw` � �` �� f r I i yill*r� s_S a r� o �.' ►ter.. >t � RiI�� •. : �:<rYl�ti�i�i'IrfiJl' _ �I- �-.li Erf'OWI Sam Wismar b�,r�.r►u�i0i�R�_v 7a:i iII1i w d•���1Lr6.7 1��CiIfV�� ��m:1�Ui n'I�/ti/La(JfJi/y�U.l�r_ � �►�6� \^Ie!iLi i�.f��r1r1:CRs1l_�..'��I�!i�I`�G�r/�1.�9i 1�'l�;`�.y Will r� � SlWw � r;12 1/;r ._ ;��I `A1111rEwa 10 ►�� .A�j���i�� �.lf. 1� a_`�1� IIII ���t'�f'✓a����i �.-�'�I�� i�� r � ►9/J/l c -RiYNIt`/i1iLMMEMl14,� u'r/w✓a�7tl.r1�lY� � I'��I 7).f7 ' r• �6/d!I�ID Lai o•■• ��iri\�% �► n Idf�� •�� �/ �.'. �JO•li �� 1/11,��1■f1 /97RG c-��'�a�j`ll���� �fn� ll tR .�—� Ir' r7�8�� F 9��'•� F�,1` ra,� \allt:{������. - d� I , . ' a ` MEMO T POP OW Pill.1 AM YF' ,par MM goo 9 WE MAN- IOW WRY NEI Rd 6 .I.X� *., k :. �i�`�.���\ ✓off � l: C .ai ----- WHO �I: i r ,•� Ar qW FIX Mom VF EVA r� E:., c ,sip ,� �,�:'.�■.����•■� �c=r.���. 1� ■ .■. MINES � �j� � ���1.■ ■■■�■�i►" �dY111110 CII■ �■■�� ►�I�1��� �����i1ri�°��E`i■ IWA In In ►.� :�� ■■w- in ���■��������i�: : i�i`:icy�1� ■ 1 " ■■ �.�.�.� �. �� � 1���+ice ■■�����Ir/ ■ Q .■■ ���� � �a Q III , ��� ������■ � � ■ 1 In WIS�Ms '7IN'/����'S -1 cam• 1s �---i 'r-A l 1 �L.t■u■ ��■ . _�r',`,f�,�.��.� �Y' ��{ �*st �-' +��e ._S� t,l,� � !�� �ll� �t■hi Illii�i�) ��,r�!! ..Iln■ nun. ` '' �1 �..:�`_�1"`•n/� � , ■III ��� �■���q (ntn■ � w:r, a .' P t , I� � _ :..�,� �� 1�= ���� �. -�►►\..�i�� .■■_ �... . err■ .. f � \ � �Imd�.1 � �__ tutu[.....: — .�-nn�1 IL :♦ \��,; L.'::::�IM Ems ,■■■■n L/■I'I' a ■F-■ro■� 0 1 ■■ ►.ter. ■=accoup "I �I��1 f 1/' ,, MI air;�lh■ ..•■�;: anrrnmua►` =� ■��i■��a ��V, >' all IffmW. �17 M.�t14r7u / 111111� ft Welm r�■ IIdIV S '■ 1�■tl�� •�in=qr p� �� S irA�1i --�� \■1■1■ �� ��II�■ sa■Isom • Q■,������� of ��I�■it11��i� ,I,• �q�mL3�r '1^ ►��I��I _w�■■■■ 1 r � 1 �I aai ■�Illt F"Ex6' i +.�� -_ '"i \��Ir\� ► . �� '- (� �IItF 1111� � �► 'r'2'ii. u e k � - - OEM �IL SO ■ ■1 ��pa �llill s�tT���l 1!7■r Sm,. �■_MV �JLr� _. ���'I. ■■ice IA i�� 1/11 Att �II� il1 'l�►��t/rim y►�j ' 1 r ■■,��- oud111 1=::�C utu: uvl ��.� ICiY , o • . • . 1 = J Iuuun IUu♦• pint ■'1N �� ■o o�. .� rlrrrr r111 E '�■ WO ON i Pia an ` �� FUIII tt RM „tom �\\III?�I�1 ��p�iiy •qua• T -*q' -ter (s —P '�` ` �\1,��`t\�1111111II♦r � kV`►����� ►I.. � • a r- ��^� ��G1��ic:fi _�/t■ 1111� �►�t���:%r �:.1 -�dia">�,'�`�" 4. ��„�, �pC. !'-��5� ;.�? �I /� ���<�J_ �►a�I AI. ■IM i �K� x� -H'�°��R "a .sr���ns..r�r._ Ir - 1 r1w iiuu ,i. ■ 1. •mot►�:. — i�R = �r �,.�,+s..a'��'`` �.. ��,c.��.Y"'p� � 7 f� 6..�. z• ,t:,ss F �,r,3}"�{ II�, �� uioiu •lIP\ A�•, '.4 � �� ' um�"ti `asr,r��+...,I�`t9r.� Y��`� : � ,i- 1 7.G�fI�� ■11■■SLL'i111�� ��� �r't../ --o.. ��trF c/-�{'�� ��� ��icy-+C �c y. � lia fr�� �■�■ ter- I�� � 1: � t �► s ���4ti��:�i►/�Ii i >-' r-s..i�'r--;I;; ' J1 UP 1 4- �1 _��� . �If*,t� t•.. �■ !I ''yam, r` t^c 11�41 Qww ir711ii1► ���� Bunn my �� ♦ . i�� /• gm �.111■d rl• OYIUi/_%O �■ I'r-�� Nikki (:Il � �F\g111111 �"-7 mingles ��■ ■ rrrlr 11■■Ilr /t1■■Ilr .'.�:i■1 -J 1 Y Jc jc WON rrrn� s♦; ♦r+ ■unq' � � I�irk �� �rG IIII�IrIi nra-rA►• Orr �►� �� <;w •F•�r�C�,�`�E r�'r�F _ �;: • /1111/11 rrrr� �� �/•1c iOpp �� COI/ � ��"7t J�'t , "'o ` 7 'c'; ■ IIII�Yrlli r►ors �.�, .u�r1 UQ�` ats ��{-�.y'"�''`;< y �a 1111/AI ■rr■�.■; nnr►�L��"' '��z6+��6 �I�1 C:nli..�;r�' . 1 1�■,��'.'Q/ .IAr■��� I II '�1 q"L.1'lll�l..�'f'tl1� \ ",� . ��Ir�• 1 1■ s x C of .,,E , �IIII■ �11'� f�! �` � ' f 1 �EII g � /I'1Ml ■ i► \ np■n■L►�l � BS��� �I�' � fir. , II`';�� :"�• _ lid . �1 .dlllu LuuP ' '�,�wr �� IIIrI♦�♦f��:�i��� �:V�i � _•fjlutrUl. �. \�. � �.u o�....■■■�■ mil■ � . .. • • /, ,/�� �,�'11AAIlilrl � II' PytS�m �� a -T--r- 1� IIIIIIIIIIIII■ / r� G �,. • l �1■IEL■ aa. / .- Ilh 1Y7r sue.. .-+ trf .� �1. t: � `■■a�� a\�■p .5. !AY'4 t c r Irk `l�ll♦I��UIIII. �e�i��. _� 7vr^a� �v_W�. � I/1■�tl r•�i in.■Ib� I 1�1i...b 1jj/!I�1�'+, t �r•lar ■(. Iflll��r'�Ii 11�■ , ra•'�►�_'L� �,'�'I II i �rC }��—�1■-u.•.�F ;� 1� �■ .•i■•■- fry■� �■4.• �_ .� � y^�*�--�`.J ZA r o 1111=■1=■�III:L:i�� r� ��� �1.�`= - CSa t,l�s " a r t r l �11 1��I�: ■.111■���.���C�� �r.� t� �..�s k + r Ellc�ll�� ` - ■■ B lid 7 1 ��■IIIIYh �'�.��®®I� � l�r� �a �`.:�PPi f __�'r ': SIM low MEME 0-1 •= _„'1' I�. _ �,� Ili ® ®al■ [ L°-'"' f ' 1 ,- ��I �i ♦ s►.i /iuund■ ■1 III I �■�► '.:i:�■ lIIr' ����' /R) . p •�ilnuuull�saw i�'llli � Ill''■IEIIYilliil►,r� ��_f �' v _ ,� ,.� �.:+u � � 1�'��`� Bann nq;r]�.41■ '� Z �'- � �7 �"' r . ■n- -• 1■ram,;�i,�• � "It.�.� . .111 r,m � unu■ /iu nnl■w.��nlln : ' "`; ,_�'I"'�lll� 11 1■IBYI Yil �� -\a.111111���•■ � ii� i� Ull■■■ iuip� wiauu�. .-S:D� S, ! rt .dl, a • a • III '.� '-� 3:� y 1 1 r . a�q Iu►I tea=■'� �' �t���■r aii►:�ar a Ala=:.�.III�Qi-���'�1��1�1►� ice`^n► ■ �p ■�Ill.�f_f� �� �6 `�I��U ■� i. �1u�,,��I�llll II �I�1111) II All !!1'''" ` � ..■rYit dig. ;►.� ♦ . , a��Ih♦•�� a�� 97i�r IYYlesII .E`.` ��■I/�a , 1� ■Ila a,�� .. Q► of fill W , �� ■! \ ■■ ■prrIII r A.1 .. n' n�r,1 it".1■ap ,;� �� n /a.�.�p.� '■UI■■■ ■ wV .. i! ff SION I♦Ln.tS�..Q�./ �.. .� ... Quiff IL �i tt:-,r. + ♦•♦mil-1■a■■ 111111111111911116 .► ..,��■•.1: �I p1 .. O ■1�■■■!Yi■1■� a leyV ='ice ♦ f . « �� ♦ ��■1■YYYI■l �Q .�'�c., '- o III■ ■�� a♦/gp il�► . l e... gm a. �I q �nnln�■at• VIRTS ��/►►►�►��it ►■E �/1�♦v/ ����i �_ ��:_ Ii %IIIII�iYr►,/�� ■■ i r�� �, ���■ — � /III �Ii oiu 11=>1�■II■■1■■� � ♦♦ ��{�� a•I,l.T�� IIII 1 4 mn:r !f■emu__w 1���.111■9 ����err• �/■:■ �� � i1t1�11' �Il��i■�'� . 1�11� �•�i� 0��.�� :i �'�w_■■ ■gnu r 111`� �a.� '/ �-_ .-�fJa�■i Red��q�•���.Vl�ri iu: �■ IIII � l� ��1''1LI .ml� ��' ■��■ ■no11'It'in mmm i ■a�Li .►�'�"7 1\!, =�IN� ��'1„IE f ■. 1■ 1 1 1■ d� _ ..N� �� �i e N`t�i/i i � :� i , ��•1•',! —■171 �.r�.,:,r�- (Hlf gnu' ■ MIN [it omit is .�/�� ♦ .. . � ■■u�_ -.-Ip urw� r�r/ t.. -� ��. ►►►►a�► +� IIIIIIIIr u,�l- ■uo1111 �a 7�:-. uwQ ur►p�-a' �a��• s! �u■I f', f♦ \�IIIPIIIf■Iru• �► �\. .. �c ' -: Lru..� ��jIQ� �CI� 1�rllll❑ � •i1iY�i ► • •a•<•rrP j1u�\: 1•� •�IILuu.I1111\\I,�IIII�iL�Y� UluUih.h/i j1►\ . �• ► � ♦ ��� . nuuc �� 11f1111111111111■::■ ■ ux InD�a� I,II�+^�.,\�■'-': / _ ■ star•./ �� �.�111i.r./d unei.�•'Ip111Ul1iiGiiil■ i _ �� a� t�.var��urr; ���.'►= 1 ► ■lum�a♦��III%L?�:n �>;un► p■nDal ' D►• ►►\■uu" 0. �af�a■�V■U r-• ��,A ��i' .40m i �I■ r VL-.�• i��''���\���II�1 11/'' >+�IIII'I�I�Ci►.-. ■ ►•`�a`a�as i 111\; a�0■ = liihi:�N:�y- D, IIINlliil►/ _ PLANNING SERVICES Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 K EN T Fax: 253-856-6454 W"3"I"°T°" Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing September 25, 2000 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Vice Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 25,2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE &PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson,Chair Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Mgr Ron Harmon Charlene Anderson,AICP Brad Bell Diana Nelson,AICP Steve Dowell Tom Brubaker,Deputy City Attorney Sharon Woodford Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT David Malik,Excused Terry Zimmerman,Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to approve the minutes of August 28, 2000. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #CPA-2000-1 URBAN SEPARATORS FRAMEWORK POLICY AMENDMENT Board member Dowell reported that a gentleman appeared at his work place to voice his concern over the urban separator issue and inquiring about the Land Use and Planning Board, Planning Committee and City Council procedures. Mr. Dowell stated that he did not present his opinion or offer information that would be construed as misleading. Board member Harmon stated that the ramifications of the urban separator issue would have a profound affect on Kent,surrounding communities and King County. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board will accept public testimony from all interested individuals and consider it in a fair and equitable manner. He stated that the Board would deliberate as long as necessary in order to reach a fair decision. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 2 Senior Planner Charlene Anderson submitted the following data for the record: • Page 12, the conclusion page of the legal opinion(was omitted from the staff report) • Resolution#15 74 "Declaring an emergency to consider the urban separator issue" • Minutes from the June 20 and July 18 City Council meetings. • November 3, 1999 letter from Denny Holt, President for Pacific Industries, by Holt and Associates, Inc. • Materials originally submitted at the November 29, 1999 LUPB meeting specifically related to the Pacific Industries and Cairnes Comprehensive Plan Amendments include: -Exhibit One,the Lowe Estates Subdivision Neighborhood Response Report -Exhibit Two,the topographic survey map -Exhibit Three, a letter from Friends of Soos Creek Park along with a comprehensive land use map and zoning map from King County. • The staff report from the November 29, 1999 public meeting. • The minutes from the November 29, 1999 public meeting. • Letter dated January 17, 2000 from Ardis Johnson directed to the Kent City Council,Kent Land Use and Planning Board, Mary Saucier with Prudential Meridian Real Estate regarding the rezone of Pacific Industries. • A staff report dated January 18, 2000 and February 15, 2000 regarding the 1999 comp plan amendments addressed to Leona Orr,President and City Council members. • The minutes from the February 15,2000 City Council meeting. • Letter dated March 15, 2000 addressed to the Honorable Jim White, Mayor City of Kent from Ron Sims,King County Executive. _ • Letter dated September 25, 2000 addressed to the Honorable Jim White, Mayor City of Kent from Ron Sims,King County Executive and Larry Phillips,King County Council. • E-mail dated September 25,2000 from Ken Peckham, Snyder Homes Sharon Woodford MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept Charlene Anderson's submittal of the additional articles into the record. Motion carried. Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that the issue of urban separators first came to the attention of the Board members through the submittal of the Caimes and Pacific Industries 1999 comprehensive plan amendments located within areas designated urban separators by King County prior to Kent's annexation of these areas. Those two comprehensive plan amendments were tabled by the City Council for consideration of the urban separator issue inside the City of Kent. Ms. Anderson stated that the urban separator issue was discussed at several Planning Committee and City Council meetings. She stated that on July 5, 2000 the City Council voted to forward to the Board the following principals and guidelines for consideration and inclusion in the comprehensive plan and zoning code as appropriate: A. PRINCIPLES: That the following principles relating to the Urban Separators be adopted: 1. Urban Separators provide benefits to the citizens of Kent and should be recognized and adopted with the current densities established for such by the County. 2. New construction should not degrade existing nearby levels of isolation, tranquility and environmental protection within existing urban areas. 3. The ability of property owners to develop their property within existing standards should not be less than their neighbors as long as it does not degrade existing nearby levels of Urban Separator isolation and protection. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Paye 3 B. GUIDELINES: That the Land Use and Planning Board consider and make recommendations as follows: 1. Establish Urban Separator goals,which could include: Promoting animal habitat and connectivity, Protecting identified listed endangered species habitat, sensitive areas, and wetlands, Protecting the peace and tranquility of recreational areas, Protecting geologically unstable areas, such as steep slopes, and Promoting water table recharge, 2. Review the areas of concern the Planning Committee identified in the existing Urban Separator in the county plan, 3. Develop a recommendation as to the appropriate Urban Separator boundary, using the Kent Urban Separator principles, 4. Consider whether clustering could be optional and adjust the proper zoning designation accordingly,if property should be moved out of an Urban Separator,and 5. Provide a recommendation for the proper zoning and any other conditions that would meet city Urban Separator goals and minimize restrictions on the property, if any property should be added to an Urban Separator. Ms. Anderson stated that the urban separator issue resulted from the Growth Management Act, which states that "each city shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas." Ms. Anderson stated that King County adopted county-wide planning policies with which the city of Kent must be consistent. She stated that the city of Kent ratified those county wide planning policies, particularly LU-27, which defines urban separators as "...low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future (in the 20 year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." Ms. Anderson stated that the Soos Creek Community Plan and Soos Creek Basin Plan identifies the issue of urban separators in King County and includes several goals and policies. Ms. Anderson stated that the City of Kent's Legal Department generated a memorandum addressing urban separators which stated: "...the county-wide planning policies cannot provide substantive direction or restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted comprehensive plan and with the overall framework of the adopted county-wide planning policies." Ms.Anderson stated urban separators did not exist in Kent before the 1996 and 97 annexation of land that King County had designated as urban separators. Subsequent review of some comprehensive plan amendments as well as the annexation zoning dealt with some of the urban separator areas. Ms. Anderson stated that some of the rezoning which occurred within the urban separator areas ranged from SR-1 to SR-3, SR-4.5 and SR-6. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 4 Ms.Anderson stated that staff proposes the following options: • Option I The City of Kent would not create any goals and policies related to urban separators, thereby not affecting change to Kent's comprehensive plan, the zoning code, zoning map nor the comprehensive plan land use map. We would use the existing sensitive area regulations to comply with the King County's county wide planning policies related to urban separators. • Option 2A proposes to adopt entirely King County's designated areas. This option would not follow the principals and guidelines forwarded by the City Council to the Land Use and Planning Board. This option would change the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map to designate urban separators as one unit per acre. This option would develop goals and policies for inclusion in the land use element of the comprehensive plan. Urban separator amendments could only occur within five-year updates or when an emergency is declared by the City Council. The City of Kent would coordinate with South King County agencies and adjacent cities to create a regional approach to urban separators; would link the urban separators of the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and would encourage clustering of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot lines as well as other land use patterns and funding options. This option would change the zoning and subdivision codes to define the parameters for cluster subdivisions within urban separators. • Option 2B Ms. Anderson stated that this option is similar to Option 2A, with the exception that certain areas have been designated for removal from the urban separator area whereas other areas have been proposed to be added. Ms. Anderson indicated those areas proposed for deletion and inclusion. • Option 3 would add and delete areas from the urban separator areas in King County's designation and would change the land use and zoning designations to one unit per acre. Areas outside the city limits of Kent would not change from their current King County designation of one unit per acre. Ms.Anderson identified the affected areas. • Option 4 is similar to Option 3 but it would not change comprehensive land use plan map or zoning map densities or designations. Ms. Anderson stated that staff does not recommend Options 3 or 4. She stated that Option 3 customizes the urban separator for Kent and adds those lands that are existing parks to the urban separator area. Ms. Anderson stated that Option 3 would add lands along Highway 18 for which staff believes it would be best to establish a regional approach to transportation corridor open space prior to enacting a policy exclusively for Kent. Ms. Anderson stated that a recommendation was made to include a policy in King County's 2000 Comprehensive Plan requiring King County to coordinate with the City of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation and other jurisdictions in order to link major elements of the open space system including the Cedar River,Lake Desire,Big Soos Creek, SR-18 and the Green River trail system. Ms. Anderson stated that Option 3 proposes deleting from the urban separator an area north of 282nd Street between 132°d and 144d', deleting a significant linkage of streams,wetlands,parkland and sensitive wildlife habitat. Ms. Anderson stated that staff does not recommend Option 4. She stated that Option 4 is similar to Option 3 but differs in that it recognizes urban separators while doing nothing to protect or increase open Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 5 space. Ms.Anderson stated that since zoning designations are not changed from what currently exist, the only effect this option would have is to restrict approval of future requests for increased density. Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends Option 2B, a county overlay with some adjustments. She spoke at length regarding the details of this recommendation,referring to the staff report. In response to Board member Bell, Ms. Anderson stated that her understanding was that the intent of the City Council's guidelines is to provide some principals for the Board to follow while considering the establishment of urban separator policies. Ms. Anderson deferred to Planning Manager,Fred Satterstrom who concurred. Board member Ron Harmon questioned if the urban separator policy was in place at the time the Meridian area was annexed by the City of Kent. Ms. Anderson stated that King County designated the urban separator and that the City of Kent adopted a county-wide planning policy which is a framework policy with their comprehensive planning. However, the City of Kent had no policies, goals, or designations for urban separators. Mr. Harmon, speaking for Ms. Zimmerman, stated that she is concerned with how surrounding cities stand in reference to King County's urban separator policy. Ms. Anderson stated that the City of Renton has adopted King County's urban separator designation and have adopted community separators in the May Valley area. The City of Covington is supportive of King County's urban separator designations. She stated that Covington has proposed increasing the urban separator area around Soos Creek Park, as well as adopting goals and policies related to urban separators while adopting King County's low density designation. Ms. Anderson stated that it is her understanding that the City of Auburn is proposing to change their urban growth areas to remove any urban separator areas designated by King County within their urban growth area. She stated that the other adjacent city is King County unincorporated. Ms. Anderson stated that she included data on Maple Valley based on a request from Board member Ms. Zimmerman although Maple Valley is not directly adjacent to Kent. She stated that Maple Valley adopts urban separator concepts. Mr. Harmon stated the majority of the water serving Kent residents comes from the Maple Valley area and development occurring in that area will affect water quality. Mr. Satterstrom asked Ms. Anderson to clarify staff s proposal of 2B. Ms. Anderson quoted the Goal LU-20: Establish urban separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas. Ms. Anderson paraphrased the following policies under that goal: • to establish urban separators as low density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre, • to allow amendments to those urban separator areas only with the five year updates of the comprehensive plan unless an emergency is declared, _ • to require subdivisions within or adjacent to those areas to provide open space linkages, • To establish urban separators as links between and for protection of sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces or trails, critical aquifer recharge areas, flood plains, high value wetlands, unstable slopes, regionally or locally significant resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat and other unique environmental features. Land d Use a Planning s n g Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 6 Ms. Anderson stated that Policy LU-20.5 refers to coordinating with adjacent cities, other agencies and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach. She stated that Policy LU-20.6 refers to linking urban separators within Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Ms. Anderson stated that Policy LU-20.7 encourages well-designed land use patterns. These land use patterns include clustering of housing units,transfer of development rights, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and enhance urban separators. Policy LU 20.8 refers to consideration of funding options; land trust,purchase of development rights and other methods for public acquisition of urban separators. Ms. Anderson stated that clustering and urban separators would be defined in the Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments. She stated that under the SR-1 Development Standards section of the Zoning and Subdivision Code, it will be established that dwelling units shall be required to be clustered, whenever those lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator. Ms. Anderson stated that the density in the cluster subdivisions shall be no greater than the density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole, using the maximum density provisions of the zoning district in which it is located. Ms. Anderson stated that the minimum lot size of individual lots within a cluster subdivision is 2500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 30 feet. Ms. Anderson stated that the common open space in a cluster subdivision should be a minimum of 50% of the nonconstrained area of the parcel. She stated that the open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured to create urban separators and green belts to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. Ms. Anderson stated that nonbuildable areas; creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas and buffers shall not be used to determine a lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision. All natural features such as streams and their buffers, significant stands of trees and rock outcropping, as well as the sensitive areas such as steep slopes.wetlands and their buffers shall be preserved as open space in a cluster subdivision. Ms. Anderson stated that future development of the open space shall be prohibited by a permanent deed restriction and protected either through dedication to the general public use or through legal arrangements approved by the City of Kent sufficient to assure its preservation, maintenance and management. Site obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area and new lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding 8 units. There may be more than one cluster per project. Ms. Anderson stated that separation between cluster groups should be a minimum of 120 feet. Restrictions have not been placed on the amount of area for cluster residential development, and other subdivision changes mirror what the zoning code requirements would be. Ms. Anderson stated that the clustering regulations in urban separator areas give property owners more flexibility in developing their property. The proposed guidelines and regulations mirror King County regulations for the most part. In response to Mr. Harmon, Ms. Anderson stated that staff's decision to reevaluate urban separators within five years versus King County's 20 year plan (1992 — 2012) is that the five year period would coincide with the five year updates normally required with the Growth Management Act. She stated that staff proposes to begin the five years at the time that the urban separator issue is adopted by the City Council,the ordinance passed and published. Ms. Anderson stated that the five years was chosen to allow the City of Kent opportunity to review urban separators as they relate to the five year update of the comprehensive plan per the Growth Management Act as well as allow for flexibility specifically in emergencies. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 7 Ms. Anderson stated that the term"emergency" as it relates to land use and planning was chosen as a tool to allow the City of Kent a means to correct any defects they may have inadvertently created, as the urban separator policy is new to the City and there needed to be a method in place to address any errors on an emergency basis. Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Bill H. Williamson, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750, Seattle,WA 98104 stated that he was testifying on behalf of a 20 acre parcel of property located at 27864 1240' Avenue Southeast owned by the Pfaffs. He stated that staff has identified this property for deletion as part of Option 2B which he fully supports. Mr. Williamson submitted a copy of the City of Kent's Sanitary Sewer Facility Map indicating urban utilities surrounding the Pfaff property for the record as Eglubit?#11. He stated that three sides of this property are developed as single family plats and parcels to the south have established homes and outbuildings as well as city sewer systems running through and around the property. Mr.Williamson stated that in effect,the Pfaff property is surrounded on all four sides by development. It would not be sensible to identify the Pfaff property as urban separator. He encouraged the Board to support Option 2B. Rita Bailie, 20607 101" Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she represents the Rainier Audubon and submitted a letter addressed to Leona Orr, President and City Council dated June 6, 2000 for the record as uh ib Z. Ms. Bailie referred to her letter in stating that "Kent citizens support the protection of urban separators, which are vital quality of life areas for people as well as the life support system for certain, wildlife species". She stated that the Audubon Society voted for growth management and does not wish to see intrinsic parts of it removed or negatively altered. Ms.Bailie stated that the County Wide Planning Policy LU-27 states that "designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future in the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities." Ms. Bailie stated that Rainier Audubon supports either Option 2A or 2B as well as a 20 year planning cycle as urban separators are defined as permanent low density lands. She stated that the Audubon supports adopting the existing King County urban separator boundaries or adding more land under the urban separator zoning. Ms. Bailie stated that the Audubon would like the term "emergency" carefully redefined or stricken entirely as its current definition is vague and leaves urban separators at risk. She stated that she believes that Safeco field came about as the result of an emergency. Ms.Bailie submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board dated September 25,2000 for the record as xh�ib W3 Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent,WA 98042 stated that he is President of"Friends of Soos Creek Park" a nonprofit organization committed to the enhancement and protection of Soos Creek Park. Mr. Miles submitted a packet of material which included; a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board dated September 25, 2000, a 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, a February 1995 King County Zoning Atlas and the King County Growth Management Planning Council Countywide Planning Policies as xhh ib 4. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 8 Mr. Miles stated that his organization is encouraged by the recent changes made to the urban separator policy by City Council and Planning Services and concurs with much of staff s report. However, he voiced concern that consistency needs to be maintained between all jurisdictions in King County as required by the Growth Management Act. He stated that RCW 78.210 requires county-wide planning policies to be developed as a basic framework from which all cities and the county would develop their comprehensive plans. Mr.Miles stated that the LU-27 county-wide planning policies were adopted and ratified by the cities and the county in 1992. Mr. Miles highlighted the basic factors of LU-27 from which comprehensive plan policies should be developed. Mr. Miles stated that RCW 36.70.100 requires local jurisdictions within King County with common boundaries or related regional issues to develop consistent, common comprehensive plans, which should be updated simultaneously. Mr. Miles stated that in 1994 King County's comprehensive plan designated a sensitive area corridor surrounding Soos Creek as an urban separator. He stated that this corridor was part of the Soos Creek Community Plan as well as the King County Comprehensive Plan, which included extensive environmental review reports. Mr. Miles stated that Covington, Kent and King County abut the Soos Creek area and that Covington supports a 20-year planning cycle. He stated that his organization supports the county map corresponding with Option 2A. Mr. Miles stated that the staff report says that Policy 20.1 allows fora five-year review cycle for urban separators and believes this to be inconsistent with Policy LU-27. He encouraged the Board to consider a more consistent 20-year review cycle. Mr. Miles stated that his organization is in favor of deleting the term"emergency" or redefine the term in LU-20.2 to the following: "Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future in the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities consistent with Covington, consistent with King County,consistent with the county wide planning policies.", striking the five years and in addition saying: "unless in an emergency which poses an imminent threat to public health and safety is declared by the City Council." Then the public would have a better understanding of"emergency". Mr. Miles asked for clarification that the area between Kent Kangley and Highway 18 would be reestablished as SR-1 under these proposals and questioned the City of Kent's growth targets for housing. Ms. Anderson stated that under staff s Options 2A, 2B and 3, those areas between Kent Kangley and Highway 18 would be rezoned to SR-1. Ms. Anderson stated that Kent is on track with meeting our 20-year housing targets annualized over a yearly basis. She stated that the buildable lands inventory and analysis currently under evaluation will tell the city how efficiently land is being used and whether or not the city will have enough capacity in the future to meet housing targets. Mr.Miles stated that he primarily objected to Option 2B as he felt the policy was inconsistent both legally and historically. Mr. Miles stated that Option 2B was inconsistent with the way in which the urban separator was originally established through the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan and King Countys Comprehensive Plan. Geraldine Miles, 24807 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 yielded her time to Doctor Klaus Richter. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 9 Dr. Klaus Richter, 11040 104th Avenue Northeast, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is a wetland ecologist specializing in wildlife issues and is in favor of retaining the urban separator. He stated that this judgement comes from ten years of studying wetlands in the King County area to determine effects of urbanization on wetlands. He stated that his research is published through many scientific journal articles. Mr. Richter stated that his summaries have been published in comprehensive detail in a book entitled "Wetlands and Urbanization Implications for the Future" which he submitted for the record as alu"bi R. Mr. Richter stated that a hydrologist; water quality specialist, botanist and soil specialists analyzed the wetlands. The concluding study clearly demonstrated that the most important factor to preserving wetland wildlife (frogs, salamanders, toads, robins, warblers, flycatchers, field mice, shrews, and moles) is by protecting both wetlands as well as retaining forested land adjacent to those wetlands. Mr. Richter stated that as urbanization intensified closer to wetlands, wildlife habitats were fragmented, substantially decreasing the number of wetland associated species while at the same time allowing rats and mice to flourish, displacing native mammals. Mr. Richter stated that the ordinance pertaining to sensitive areas and their buffers are inadequate to protect amphibian habitat. Mr. Richter stated that he supports King County's Option 2A and submitted for the record, a study on "Some Thoughts on Wildlife in Landscape-Level Wetland Assessments"as Ex b _ Mr.Richter stated that King County has a clause in their sensitive areas ordinance stating that they do not have all wetland location maps available nor are they aware of where all wetlands are located, leaving the responsibility of locating wetlands to the individual land owner. Elizabeth Miles, 24639 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she is a regular park user and leads nature walks for elementary school children and adults on the Soos Creek Trail. She stated that she supports Option 2A map as King County originally designated it. Ms.Miles stated that her two concerns regard consistency and policy language. She stated that Friends of Soos Creek Park has collected 1,289 signatures from citizens requesting preservation of the current urban separator policy of one home per acre ratified by the City of Kent in 1992. Ms. Miles submitted the Urban Separator Signature Petitions for the record as ahibit; #7 These petitions indicate that Soos Creek Park is a regional park and trail used by people from many local communities including Kent, Covington,Renton,Maple Valley and Issaquah. Ms. Miles stated that this petition indicates that the urban separator is a regional issue,not just a City of Kent issue. She stated that the Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions with common borders or related regional issues such as the Soos Creek Park to maintain consistent comprehensive plans. Ms. Miles stated that Kent's proposed policy must be modified to reflect the permanency of urban separator designations such as retaining a 20-year planning cycle. Ms. Miles stated that she would like to see the tern "emergency" removed from the policy language as she could not conceive of an emergency that would cause a city to increase density in the sensitive areas surrounding Soos Creek Park,which deserves preservation. Barbara Wuepper, 1914 36th Street Southeast, Auburn, WA 98002 stated that she would like to see Policy LU 20.2 changed to reflect a twenty year rather than a five year review period and delete the emergency option. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 10 Bob Nelson, 24048 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 commended staff on their comprehensive,thorough staff analysis. Mr. Nelson concurred with Mr. Miles in stating that the City of Kent's policy and comprehensive plan should be consistent with adjoining jurisdictions concerning urban separators and cited RCW 36.70A.100. He stated that the urban separator review period should be 20 and not 5 years. Mr. Nelson referred to the January 20, 2000 City of Kent's legal brief in speaking at length on the Countywide Planning Policy LU-27. Walt Kueblthau, 24116 145th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 commended staff on the thoroughness of their report and presentations. He stated that he supports Option 2A to accept King County's designated urban separator, to maintain consistency with the surrounding communities and establish a 20-year review policy without increasing density in the urban separator area. Mr. Kuehlthau stated that he would like reference to "emergency" stricken from the urban separator policy as it signals a red flag allowing City Council to declare an emergency at their whim. Denise Brumbaugh, 25902 146th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that her property abuts the urban separator. She stated that her family moved to Kent due to the natural abundance of green wide open spaces and purchased their home with the knowledge that the area surrounding them would be protected for at least 20 years. Ms. Brumbaugh voiced her support for Option 2A to keep the urban separator agreement intact. She stated that she would like the review period to remain at 20 years and see that the term"emergency"is more thoroughly defined" or stricken from the documentation. Roger Lubovich, City Attorney in response to Board member Bell's request stated that the 20 years is part of the planning cycle under the Growth Management Act and that the emergency designation is part of the City of Kent's comp plan process. He stated that per the Growth Management Act the City of Kent could generally only accept comprehensive plan amendments once per year. Mr. Lubovich stated that the city code defines emergency as a procedure designed to allow for the processing of comprehensive plan amendments and is a designation assigned by Council. He stated that the urban separator issue was being heard before the Land Use and Planning Board because of an emergency declaration resolution generated by the Council as part of the amendment process. Catherine Patton,24430 148th Avenue Southeast, Covington,WA 98042 stated that she has resided in her rural Kent location for 15 years and voiced support for retaining urban separators. She stated that the community has the obligation to look at the future needs of their area, which may not be met if the urban separator is changed. Ms. Patton stated that her property abuts Soos Creek and she supports the wetland issues as well as being sensitive to the wellhead designation. She stated that her home is located at the bottom of a hill and she obtains her water through a well system. Ms.Patton raised concern that if the urban separator designation changes this could cause additional pollution in the area as well create water run off problems. Ms.Patton stated that people have the right to develop their property but that we have a greater obligation to preserve urban separators. Bernard Bailie, 20607 101st Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that as an enthusiastic Soos Creek Trail user, he voiced his concurrence with the comments made by Joe Miles and the Friends of Soos Creek. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 11 John Cate, 15232 Southeast 272nd, Kent, WA 98042 stated that when he moved to Kent nine years ago he expected to reside in a tranquil rural area. He stated that he found this tranquility in the Soos Creek Park, along the trail and from the water from a well near Soos Creek. Mr. Cate stated that although the urban separator areas are ghosts of their former selves, they need to be retained in order to provide a relaxing reprieve from urbanization that only a wilderness like area can provide. Mr. Cate stated that he supports the option to keep King County's original plan for urban separators and said that he would like to see the term"emergency"better defused. Ardis Johnson, 24039 146th Place Southeast, Kent, WA 98064 stated that when urban barriers are considered they should be doled out with equality. She stated that she has owned her 8.6 acre parcel of land for over 50 years and that it is zoned SR-1. Ms. Johnson stated that two sides of her property are developed at 4.5 units per acre and that she should be granted the same opportunity to develop her property at the same level as the adjoining property owners. Ms. Johnson stated that reducing her property value by 50 percent sounds like punitive zoning. Mr. Harmon stated that she would be equitably treated concerning development of her property as development has occurred around her property. Ms. Johnson voiced her opposition to a 20-year review period, as Kent will need to be able to accommodate housing needs as the population of the area grows. She stated that Kent's land use laws currently in effect protect the property owner with slope setbacks, wetland exclusions, stormwater _ retention ponds, cul-de-sacs, traffic flow configurations as well as other restrictive requirements before approval for development. Ms. Johnson stated that where open space is required to safe the salmon and wildlife, the City of Kent should introduce a bond taxing the citizens to purchase the land necessary to protect Soos Creek. Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to continue the public hearing to Monday, October 16, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Kent's Council Chambers. Motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP Secretary � r PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager 4400 Phone: 253-856-5454 NZ K E N T Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Continued Public Hearing October 16, 2000 The continued meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,October 16, 2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Mgr. Ron Harmon,Vice Chair Charlene Anderson,AICP Brad Bell Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Steve Dowell Pat Fitzpatrick, Asst. City Attorney David Malik Bill Wolinski,Env Engineer Mgr. Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Terry Zimmerman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Terry Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the minutes of September 25, 2000 with the following revision: to add after Mr. Dowell's statement in the sentence "...would be construed as misleading and he would recuse himself if someone objects." Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom stated that there will be a November 7 City Council public hearing on the moratorium affecting urban separator lands. He stated that City Council passed a moratorium affecting properties designated on King County's Comprehensive Plan as urban separators as well as any land proposed by Kent's Planning staff for deletion or addition to the urban separator. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the moratorium could remain in affect until this recommendation goes forward to City Council and a policy is adopted. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the moratorium disallows application of subdivisions, shortplats and rezones that would potentially increase the density of residential development in those areas. Mr. Satterstrom stated that a notice was mailed to all people in those designated areas announcing both this October 16 continued hearing and the upcoming moratorium hearing. #CPA-2000-1 URBAN SEPARATORS FRAMEWORK POLICY AMENDMENT Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that she testified at the last hearing that the City of Renton fully accepted King County's urban separator land use designations and wished to correct this information. She stated that Renton accepts in principal the concept of urban separators. She stated that the City of Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 2 Renton desires flexibility in designating lands within their urban separator areas, which they define as community separators. Ms. Anderson stated that in all options except Option 1, King County designations would remain at one unit per acre on urban separator lands designated in the 1994 King County comprehensive plan and located outside Kent city limits. Ms. Anderson stated there are vested plats in the added areas along SR-18 under Options 3 and 4 of their report. They include Meridian Pacific and Meridian Ridge. Ms. Anderson submitted a letter from Rebecca Westby dated October 16, 2000 for the record as 9-AW", #1 and an E-mail letter received from Mr. Len Elliott on September 25, 2000 supporting Option 2A for the record as Exhibit#2 Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, submitted an October 16, 2000 memorandum from the City of Kent Legal department for the record as Ex >k# highlighting critical issues. Mr. Lubovich stated that although there are neither case laws nor Central Puget Sound Hearings Board cases on urban separators, there is a Snoqualmie case on countywide planning policies over a 1993 matter. He referenced the statute relating to what the Growth Management Act requires of cities and counties on these county-wide planning policies. Mr. Lubovich said that 36.70A.210 states that the countywide planning policy is a written policy statement for establishing the framework for county and city comprehensive plans. He said that the statute says that countywide planning policies cannot stop the land use powers of cities. _ Mr. Lubovich stated that the Snoqualmie case defines the land use power of a city as a development regulation such as zoning or similar regulations. He stated that the intent of the countywide planning policies is to provide substantive direction to comp plans which in turn, provide direction to development regulations. Mr. Lubovich stated that countywide planning policies provide the vehicle for procedural consistency between cities and the county and that the City of Kent should follow these policies. Mr. Lubovich stated that Snoqualmie prepared a test to determine whether their legal substantive direction to a comprehensive plan meets: • legitimate regional directives, • provides substantive direction to the comp plan without affecting the development regulations of the local jurisdictions, • is consistent with the other objectives of growth management. Mr. Lubovich stated that the City of Kent has ratified the CPP LU-27 "urban separator countywide planning policy" and is bound to follow that policy to the extent that it does not interfere with the City's development regulations. Mr. Lubovich stated that it is his understanding that the county has deleted urban separators from the Meridian area annexed by Kent in 1996 from their current comprehensive plan map. He said that the City of Kent should establish a comprehensive plan, map and policies for the urban separator consistent with LU-27. Mr. Lubovich stated that those properties zoned three or 4.5 units per acre are not consistent with the intent of low-density urban separators, therefore, could be excluded from the map. He stated that if these properties are not excluded from the urban separators, it is incumbent upon the City of Kent to rezone these properties to a lower density to avoid establishing conflict within our own polices or with the intent of the urban separator policy under the county's plan. However, if the City of Kent decides to include the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 3 high-density properties as part of the urban separator, zoning issues will need to be evaluated and the issue of"taking", which is parcel specific,considered as they arise. Mr. Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent has permitted, vested applications pending, the applicant is entitled to proceed with their development. In response to Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Lubovich stated that the Legal Department's opinion is that the City of Kent has always been bound by the Countywide Planning Policies. He stated that those policies could not dictate how the City of Kent regulates zoning or other development for the urban separator areas. Mr. Lubovich stated that the 1996 or 1997 amendment to the Growth Management Act states clearly that local jurisdictions have great deference in their ability and authority to develop local regulations. He stated that if the City of Kent develops a regulation, which defeats the purpose of the countywide planning policy, this could manifest problems for the city. He stated that 4.5 units per acre does not meet the intent of a low-density buffer under the policy. Mr. Harmon asked for clarification regarding staff s report concerning the goals and policies beginning with LU-20 through LU-20.8. Mr. Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent wishes to review urban separator policy every 5 years, they would need to coordinate their review jointly with the county and neighboring jurisdictions. In response to Mr. Bell, Mr. Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent were to act with the intent to defeat the urban separator, this would create legal challenges. He stated that the city is bound by a policy to have urban separators and that the County could have a good basis for suing the City of Kent if the city were to deviate from the countywide planning policies. Mr. Lubovich defined a "vested application" as a substantially completed development application filed with the City of Kent for land use proposals that the city is working with. He stated that a number of applications have been filed and that the applicant is legally entitled to proceed with that application. Mr. Lubovich stated that for the City of Kent to prevent them from fulfilling that development or their right to develop by changing zoning would cause a"takings"issue. In response to Mr. Dowell, Mr. Lubovich stated that an interlocal agreement exists between the City of Kent and the County. This agreement concerns pending zoning and land use applications at the time the applications were filed in the county and subsequently turned over to Kent because of the Meridian annexation. Mr. Lubovich stated that he is unaware of any new interlocal agreements between the City and County. In response to Mr. Dowell, Mr. Lubovich stated that City Council adopted Resolution 1325 on September 1, 1992 with a subsequent adoption of Resolution 1326 ratifying Kent's proposed growth management planning goals. These goals were based on goals contained in the Growth Management Act and County- wide Planning Policies. There was a third ratification referred to in the memo. Bill Wolinski, City of Kent Environmental Engineer, Dept of Public Works stated that he performed an analysis of the potential environmental impacts from development of the area located north of 282nd Street between 124th Avenue and 128th Avenue. He stated that planning staff is recommending deletion of this parcel from the urban separator. Mr. Wolinski stated he looked at the principal impacts associated with storm water runoff from the development based on existing conditions, at one dwelling unit per acre and with the potential of development at 4.5 units per acre. Mr. Wolinksi stated that Kent adopted King County's criteria when they annexed the area, which is part of the Soosette Creek system. He stated that these downstream areas are highly erodable. Mr. Wolinski stated that the City of Kent has stringent requirements for detention of stormwater in this particular area. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Wolinski stated detention ponds restrict the amount of water leaving the site and when a site is developed,the proportion of water flowing into the ground lessens with the density of development or the increase in imperviousness. He stated that the amount of water that runs off the site increases. Mr. Wolinski stated that depending on the amount of impervious cover, there is a total increase in stormwater volume as the density of development increases. He stated that when development increases from one to 4.5 dwelling units per acre, there is a dramatic increase in stormwater volume although the rate of release can be regulated. Mr. Wolinski stated that the principle adverse impact this has on the stream systems and environment is that less water enters the ground water system. He stated that this impact is particularly acute with reference to the Endangered Species Act, as during the dry season there is not enough ground water to replenish the summer stream flows located downgrade from these sites. Mr. Wolinski stated that the current Endangered Species Act requires 200-foot corridors on either side of the streams for protection. He stated that the site he evaluated is located in the lower part of the West Soosette Creek system and at the time of annexation, the City of Kent completed a comprehensive fisheries assessment. Mr. Wolinski stated that Coho Salmon and Cutthroat Trout were located immediately downstream of this parcel. He stated that this area could be considered sensitive due to the proximity of the parcel to these stream systems. Mr. Wolinski stated that he believes the rational the county was following in establishing the urban separators is that these areas were relatively undeveloped at the time and set in an area of high fish use with high land-cover value. He stated that the County wanted to retain urban separators although development had occurred in this area. He stated that this site is contiguous to a larger urban separator system spanning both sides of the creek. In response to Mr. Malik, Mr. Wolinski stated that development of this particular parcel of land would not have a direct impact on the City of Kent's water supply as this site does not lie in the ground water recharge areas for the city's water supply system. Mr. Wolinski stated that from a storm water quality standpoint, our management capabilities in handling stormwater are in a relative infancy as far as our ability to prevent adverse impacts from development. He stated that the city requires bioswales and wet ponds which are only 60 to 70 percent affective and stated that there is an increase in pollution loading as a result of development. Karen Johnson, 31028 W. Lake Morton Dr Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she is in the process of purchasing the property at 24039 146th Place Southeast and voiced her support generally for maintaining urban separators. She stated that staff has defined urban separators as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands. Ms. Johnson stated however, that she would like City Council to look at the lay of the land and consider where the natural boundaries are when defining the areas that need protection. She indicated that, for example, a ridgeline in the Johnson property appears to create a clear demarcation for urban separators as it runs along the eastern edge of the property line clear to the road. Ms. Johnson stated that 240th provides a natural separator as well as the 20 to 60 percent ravine slope adjacent to 240th running down towards Soos Creek. Ms. Johnson stated that the Johnson's 8 acre parcel should be deleted from the urban separator as a majority of the property adjoins an extremely dense development on the south and west and does not meet the criteria for low-density. Ms. Johnson stated that this property contains a water and sewer infrastructure along the property line for development purposes. With setbacks and other required restrictions already in place, there would be more than an adequate buffer between the houses and the creek. Ms. Johnson stated that at the March 6, 2000 Planning Committee meeting, the subject of property rights and compensation were discussed. She quoted "the RCW provides that private property should not be Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 5 taken for public use without just compensation". She stated that making public of private land, such as making private land into public urban separators without compensation to the land owners, is equivalent to what our forefathers fought for in the war against taxation without representation. Ms. Johnson stated that since the value of land as development property has been reduced,it seems fair to allow some reduction in taxes for landowners as compensation for the loss of development revenue. Ms. Johnson voiced her displeasure in how people are abusing the open space areas and stated that these signs do not encourage landowners to leave their property undeveloped. Ms. Johnson spoke at length on the issue of"entitlement". She asked that the Board use a sense of reasonableness in considering all of the arguments and that they ensure that landowners not lose the right to develop their property at some future date. She stated that language should guarantee under "Specific Guidelines"that development could not be challenged in the future. Ms. Johnson stated that the people yelling the loudest for urban separators have the least to lose. Ms. Johnson submitted a report for the record as Eachi4. Ms. Johnson concurred when questioned by Mr. Harmon that her property is currently zoned one unit per acre. She stated that when the County zoned the property she believes that Mrs. Ardis Johnson was not notified. She stated that her family believes they should have the same right to zone their property at 4.5 units per acre. Fred Mendosa,Post Office Box 140,Kent,WA 98025-0140 stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Don Clasen and is a member of the Curran-Mendosa law firm. He stated that urban separators are critical to the environment and to those who live in the valley. Mr. Mendosa stated that it is important for the City of Kent to create an urban separator policy which follows the framework created by the county while still allowing the city the discretion necessary to develop land consistent with the needs of the citizens. Mr. Mendosa stated that Mr. and Mrs. Clasen received approval of a rezone of their property from 3 to 6 units per acre one year ago. He stated that this property has wetlands on it as well as abutting a large wetland. Mr. Mendosa stated that with the city's land use and zoning requirements, some of their property will be incorporated into that wetland, creating a huge natural urban separator that will protect the environment in that area. Mr. Mendosa stated that Mr. and Mrs. Clasen do not have a vested application before the city at this time and that after last year's rezone, they began to invest in and have continued to invest a tremendous amount of time, effort and money in developing their land for housing. Mr. Mendosa stated that this property is the last large parcel of property inside the urban separator consisting of 11 acres and will not be developed at six units per acre. He estimated development at 3 to 4 units per acre. He stated that this property should not be reduced to one unit per acre, as development of this property would not alter the natural urban separator that already exists. Mr. Mendosa noted County Executive Ron Sims response to the Mayor in March, 2000 concerning comments made by Mayor White on the proposal before the Land Use and Planning Board that "it is not our intention to unnecessarily restrict land, limit its use to one unit per acre". Mr. Mendosa stated that the City of Kent needs to develop an urban separator policy based on good environmentally sound reasoning. Don Clasen, 13602 SE 282nd St., Kent, WA Mr. Clasen submitted a comment letter dated 10/16/00 addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board for the record as Iva" . Mr. Clasen referred to his report in voicing concern that enactment of urban separators could affect his property. He stated that a 20-acre wetland exists in the vicinity with part of this wetland located on his Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 6 ^ property and two of his neighbors. Mr. Clasen stated that he and his neighbors are obligated to provide 100 foot buffers from the wetlands which provides for a natural urban separator of over 30 acres in size. Mr. Clasen stated that his property could be developed at 4.6 units per acre rather than R-6 and quoted Charlene Anderson's statement of October 16 in that "while housing goals were met for this year, there is no assurance that future housing goals will be met". Mr. Clasen stated that his property is one of the largest remaining prime developable parcels in Kent and there is no assurance that future housing goals will be met if developable property is taken away. Mr. Clasen stated that since the City of Kent has rezoned their property, they have made a number of irrevocable decisions and financial commitments based on the action taken by the city one year ago. He asked the Board to weigh all facts and determine the needs for additional urban separators in our immediate vicinity in view of the existing natural urban separator abutting his property on the north and east side. Mr. Clasen voiced his desire for the Board and City Council to stand by their original decision when they rezoned his property, which is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Andrew Cairnes, 14845 Southeast 264th Street, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his property two years ago and spoke with the Kent Planning Department over one year ago about the feasibility of dividing his property for the purpose of building two single family residences. Mr. Caimes stated that he was informed that his property could be divided into three or more parcels, although his intent was to divide his property in half. Mr. Caimes stated that he submitted an application last year to divide his property. Mr. Caimes submitted the portion of the Planning Department's staff report dated November 29, 1999,recommending that his property be rezoned to SR-2,for the record as� ]x ►_ Mr. Caimes quoted from staff s November 29, 1999 report emphasizing that Planning staff recommended approval of a rezone change to his property to SR-2 and urged the Board to retain the current zoning on his property as previously approved. Leonard Juhnke, 13511 Southeast 278th Street, Kent, WA stated that he resides on a one-acre parcel purchased 12 years ago due to the low-density rural nature of the area and backing onto the Little Soosette Creek. He stated that the 27 large native fir trees existing on this property should be preserved. Mr. Juhnke stated that since incorporation of this area two adjacent properties have been rezoned to R-7. Mr. Juhnke stated that he believes that the City of Kent should support King County's current urban separator zoning and retain a 20-year review cycle. Marc Imlay,24625 148th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he lives within the interurban buffer and represents the 148th Lane Property Owners Association, a group of eleven property owners. Mr. Imlay submitted a four page"Summary of Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future"report for the record as 2 stating that this summary represents several studies performed in the Puget Sound area on wetlands and what is needed to protect them. Mr. Imlay stated that these studies were conducted to determine what urbanization factors negatively impact wetlands and at what levels these factors begin to affect wetlands. He stated that preventative measures could mitigate these impacts. Mr. Imlay stated that these studies have included analyzing hydrological factors, water flow and retention, water and soil quality and biological indicators including plant, animal and insect. Mr. Imlay stated that this book cover studies on; research design; broad data tables, statistical analysis as well as utilize the results annotations to other published studies and conclusions. Mr. Imlay referred to the Summary Report in reiterating facts for protection of the wetlands. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes _ October 16, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Imlay indicated that the recommendation for protecting wetlands in the report represents an ideal situation, which is no longer available with the current buffer system that is in place with the county. Mr. Imlay submitted a letter from the 148th Lane Property Owners Association for the record as ER-]d­4 #8. Mr. Imlay quoted from the letter, stating that "the member households of our organization, nine of which are in the City of Kent, and in the urban separator, with the remaining two on the Covington side of the Kent/Covington border within the urban separator unanimously endorse the Kent Planning Board's urban separator Option 2A which overlays the King County Urban Separators onto the Kent Comprehensive Plan" Mr. Imlay referred to his report in detailing the reasons that the 148th Lane Property Owners Association endorse Option 2A. Mr. Imlay submitted a February 2000 Newsletter from State Representative Phil Fortunato for the record as Exhibit#9 The newsletter includes a controversial issues survey on Growth Management, which Mr. Imlay quoted from. Emily Leonard, 13321 Southeast 278th Street, Kent, WA stated that her residence of 11 years abuts Little Soosette Creek where Coho Salmon exist. She stated that in fall and winter water levels overflow and in the summer water levels are low in this sensitive urban separator area. Ms. Leonard stated that she would like to see that the environment is preserved so that the wildlife habitat is not destroyed. She stated that the development around her threatens urban separateness and voiced her support of Option 1 with no change to the policy. Phil Fortunato, 10223 Southeast 200th Street, Kent, WA stated that he speaks on behalf of the property located at 132nd Avenue, north of Southeast 280th. He stated that government agencies and legislative bodies need to provide for the protection of people's property rights as well as the environment. Mr. Fortunato stated that he is in the business of erosion and sediment control on construction sites. He stated that King County's Ordinance for storm water management resulted in increased water runoff, decreased aquifer recharge and reductions in water quality. Mr. Fortunato spoke at length on his knowledge of storm water policies and storm water management studies conducted in Washington. Mr. Fortunato stated that with infrastructure in place near this property, it would not be feasible for the City of Kent to rezone this property to a lower density. In referring to the February 2000 newsletter quoted by Mr. Imlay, he added that 90.5% of survey respondents thought the City should be required to pay the property owner when a government action causes a reduction in an owner's property value. Cal Ainley, 24524 148th Lane Southeast, Kent, WA stated that his residence is located in the buffer zone. He stated that a high degree of pollutants is evident on his property six or seven months of the year because of high volumes of water runoff from a development outside the buffer zone near his property. Mr. Ainley stated that as a schoolteacher, he lives by the adage in the classroom that says, "to say what you mean and mean what you say". He stated that when he tells his students, there are boundaries to live by and then if those boundaries are compromised to accommodate whatever whim comes along, it has a tendency to create havoc. Mr.Ainley stated that the City of Kent should adhere to King County's urban separator policy stating that the policy has built in provisions for reevaluation if needed. Mr. Ainley stated that the City of Kent needs to question if they are doing what they say and that this will send a strong message about integrity and what our young people can believe in government. He Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 8 encouraged the Council to look at what the County has set up and what the City of Kent decided to act upon when they annexed those portions of King County. Barbara Holt, 24920 177th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she lives in unincorporated King County and is a member of Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention. She stated that the urban separator policy is of regional concern and that policy decisions affect people like me and my neighbors living outside the City of Kent. Ms. Holt stated that Soos Creek Park is abundant with plants and wildlife, which are disappearing due to rapid and uncontrolled development. She stated that Soos Creek Park needs continued protection and stated that of the four options proposed for the urban separator policy, 2A appears to be the most appropriate option in regards to protecting land. Ms. Holt stated that she supports a 20-year review period and that the word "emergency" should be removed as it creates a loophole for politicians,planners and developers. Pamela Yager, 18303 Southeast 263rd, Covington, WA stated that she is the corresponding secretary for Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention Association. She stated that her family has resided near Soos Creek since 1919 and moved into Covington near Jenkins Creek in 1923. Ms. Yager voiced her concern over always allowing the next parcel to be rezoned like the parcel next to it and envisions big box retail working its way out to the mountains. She stated that she would like to see the definition "emergency" eliminated as she recalled even though people said no to Safeco Field, Safeco Field became a realty because legislation determined it was an emergency. She cited other emergency ordinances adopted by the City of Covington against the wishes of the people. Ms. Yager stated she approved of the downzoning of her five acre rural parcel from 4.5 and 6 units per acre to one unit per acre as it keeps this southeast area of King County from being overrun with houses. Ms. Yager stated that people could save 30 to 90 percent of their property taxes by setting aside a portion of their land as open space. She stated that the City of Kent needs to lower housing goals and the State needs to lower mandated upzoning for housing goal development, as our habitat can not withstand it. Ms. Yager stated that the goals of the Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention Association are to educate the public and government and to try to make government controlled and responsible. Ms. Yager stated that King County chose the parcels in the urban separator with careful consideration and based on scientific data, which included geologically sensitive areas. Ms. Yager spoke about the effects that land development has on our quality of life, wildlife, critical aquifer recharge areas, air quality and water quality and quantity. She stated that Kirk V. Cook, a hydrologist, developed a guidance document for the establishment of critical recharge area ordinances from which he developed a water quality program for the Washington State Department of Ecology. Ms. Yager stated that in 1990, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act and Substitute House Bill 2929, now codified as Chapter 36.70A RCW. This statute combined with that of Article 11 of the Washington State Constitution mandates that local jurisdictions adopt ordinances that classify, designate and regulate land use in order to protect critical areas. Ms. Yager stated that critical areas are defined as wetlands, frequently flooded areas, aquifer recharge areas and geologically hazardous areas. She stated that these definitions are part of the concept set forth by the Department of Ecology for establishing our laws. She stated that these concepts exist regarding groundwater protection. They are general in nature and they are applied regardless of whether it is a local ordinance, a federal or a state statute, state regulation or guideline. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 9 Ms. Yager continued to speak at length quoting from reports on the importance of protecting groundwater in sensitive areas with the use of technically sound but realistic methodologies. Ms. Yager stated that the City of Kent must have an ordinance policy in place outlining the methodology by which the city will determine how they will deal with the critical aquifer recharge area problems in order to comply with the law. Ms. Yager stated that the guidance document she has been referring to is entitled: Guidance Document for the Establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinances by Washington State Department of Ecology. She encouraged the Board and Council to read this document. Robert Pfaff, 29204 124th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that his property is located at 27864 24th Avenue Southeast and surrounded on three sides by development. He stated that he was in favor of this area being annexed at the time that it occurred and was told that he would be able to develop his property at 4.5 units per acre. He does not want to see his zoning down sized. Nancy Streiffert, 10102 Southeast 270th Place, Kent, WA 98031 stated that the urban separator is a special area deserving of full protection under the Kent Comprehensive Plan which should be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. She stated that there should be a 20-year review period in order to protect green open spaces as an urban separator. Ms. Streiffert stated that she supports Option 2A as a way to protect this area. Ms. Streiffert stated that the emergency clause should be removed, as she cannot see how it would apply to the urban separator. She stated that the Soos Creek Trail provides a necessary and safe space for families. Ms. Streiffert stated that she owns a two-acre parcel, which abuts up to a mitigated area for the 272nd road. She stated that she has chosen to put this property into the public benefits rating system, which substantially reduces property taxes. She stated that this system allows a property owner to voluntarily give up their development rights in return for a decrease in property taxes. Shelly Bauer, 26203 131st Place Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she works as a volunteer with the Cascade Conservation sector of the Sierra Club and represents a group of 20,000 members in Washington State, 8,000 in the Puget Sound area and about 1,000 in the Kent and surrounding areas as well as the South King County Sierra Club group. Ms. Bauer stated that she frequently uses the Soos Creek Trail. She stated that she and her husband chose their community to live in, as it was more secluded with a permanent green space in the background designated as wetlands. Ms. Bauer stated that preservation is less costly than rehabilitation of the urban separator and stated that when mitigation occurs, these lands can never regain the same environmental quality. She stated that if the urban separators are compromised, there could be legal ramifications based on ESA requirements. Ms. Bauer stated that she does not believe that taxpayers should pay to subsidize development and the city should consider the economics of intangibles. Ms. Bauer spoke at length on her view of property values in the urban separator area as well as how property values relate to the "takings" issue. She stated property next to the Burke Gilman Trail has increased in value. Ms. Bauer stated that the City of Kent's policy should be consistent with King County and other cities. She voiced support for keeping King County's existing urban separator map based on hydrological and geological concerns. She supports King County's 20-year review period and wants the ill-defined "emergency"loophole eliminated. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 10 Ms. Bauer voiced her support of Option 2A or 2B if deletions are offset with additions of the same acreage and the same quality of land. John Cate, 15232 Southeast 272nd Street, Space 17, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he resides in the mobile home park which receives water from wells in the area. Mr. Cate stated that he supports protecting the Soos Creek urban separator and spoke on the importance of maintaining the wetland ecosystem and controlling groundwater in the area. Mr. Cate stated that the emergency language needs to be eliminated. Mr. Cate stated that the city should not change the current urban separator map and stated that he favors a 20-year review period. He voiced support for Option 2A. Britt Pfaff, 516 N. 8th, Mount Vernon, WA 98273 spoke on behalf of her family's property located at 27864 124th Avenue Southeast which is surrounded by development. She submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board, dated October 16, 2000 for the record as ) athibtt U. Ms. Pfaff quoted from this letter emphasizing the following points: Ms. Pfaff stated that in reviewing the County-wide Planning Policy LU-27, she does not believe her property meets the urban separator criteria,therefore, should remain at its current zoning of SR 4.5. Ms. Pfaff stated that the property consists of 20 acres unsuitable for wildlife habitat as it has been heavily grazed for cattle production. She stated that the original drainage of the property has been altered due to surrounding development and that surface water draining from the site enters into the surrounding surface water drainage system exiting into both the City of Kent and King County. Ms. Pfaff submitted a copy of the Washin ton Administrative Code, WAC 365-195-420 Identification of Open Space Corridors for the record as Q, i '1. Louise Lea, 12605 Southeast 282nd Street, Kent, WA stated that she purchased her property located at 12624 Southeast 282nd Street with the intent to develop it. She stated that she would not have purchased her property if the urban separator issue had been brought to her attention at the time of her feasibility study through Planning Services. Ms. Lea spoke at length on her concerns with the urban separator. She voiced her believe that the Growth Management Act 36.70A.210 gives full control of land use to the cities, quoting from the GMA. Ms. Lea stated that the City of Kent needs to set its own policy in accordance with the GMA and spoke at length on the goals and spirit of the GMA. Ms. Lea referred to two letters addressed to Mayor Jim White from Ron Sims, King County Executive expressing to him that increasing the residential density within the designated urban separator is inconsistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-27. Ms. Lea responded to Mr. Bell's concern that the County has the potential to sue the City of Kent, stating that the city may be opening itself up for a law-suit through the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board if the city attempts to opt out of planned growth. Ms. Lea said that she states this because of Case #98-3-0012 LMI/Chevron v. the Town of Woodway who in attempting to restrict growth was found to be in non-compliance with the GMA. Ms. Lea stated that the City of Kent is mandated to plan for growth by state government and that laws and regulations are in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas. She stated that King County should not be allowed to set policy for the City of Kent and that Kent should not downzone areas currently zoned R 4.5 or R-6 and that the City of Kent should plan for responsible growth. Jim DiPeso,419 Hazel Avenue North,Kent, WA stated that he represents the Rainier Audubon Society consisting of 700 south King County members with a mission to support the conservation of birds, fish and other wildlife. He stated that the Society supports the proposed urban separator policy. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 11 Mr. DiPeso stated that when development occurs, storm water impacts include erosion, water pollution, and high water temperatures, and reduced aquifer recharge. Mr. DiPeso stated that the urban separators are permanent low-density lands of regional significance, therefore, supports a 20-year review period. He asked that the "emergency" loophole be redefined or deleted from the proposal and stated that the Society supports Option 2A. Mr. DiPeso stated that if the Board votes in favor of Option 213, that it be offset with an acreage of equal or higher environmental quality. Mr. Philip Skinner, 24048 146th Street, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his 2.25 acres, adjacent to the Johnson property, four years ago with the assumption that the area would remain free from development. He stated that Kent agreed to set aside the Soos Creek area and the County designated the area as a natural buffer zone. Mr. Skinner stated that his property contains a sensitive hillside area. He voiced concern that if homes are built on the land above his property in excess of one home per acre, hillside erosion could occur, causing the potential for homes to slide downward. Mr. Skinner voiced support for Option 2A to retain urban separators and asked that the "emergency"clause be removed from this option. Gabriel Cordi, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98402 urged the City of Kent to look at protecting the environment and not alter the comprehensive map of the urban separator area without making a careful assessment of the area. Mr. Cordi spoke at length on the importance of protecting the wetlands, citing areas in the region that have been destroyed. Mr. Cordi urged the Board to weigh all factors, voicing his belief that his children and grandchildren should be allowed the opportunity to use their land in any way they desire. Jeff Tate, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he represents the Cordi property, which has a zoning of R-6. He stated that Planning staff s proposal would change that zoning to one unit per acre. Mr.Tate stated that densities in the area are R-3,R-4.5,R-6 and MH-P. He stated that the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing's Board does not address urban separators but specifically addresses densities within cities. Mr. Tate stated that in Pierce County versus Tacoma, Vashon versus Morrie, Benaroya versus Redmond; it has been repeatedly and emphatically ruled that 1.1 unit per acre is not an appropriate urban density. He stated that the Hearings Board further stated that four dwelling units per acre is the minimum acceptable urban density. Mr. Tate stated that low density, as required in the land use countywide planning policy LU-27, would be four dwelling units per acre, which is a minimum urban density or low density, by urban standards. Mr. Tate stated that the staff report fails to mention how this density would comply with the precedence established by these Hearings Board rulings. Mr. Tate stated that the Hearings Board has on occasion upheld the one unit per acre density, but only where there is a significant presence of critical areas limiting development potential and requiring added protection. He stated that the area where the Cordi property is located as well as most of the adjacent properties is flat,with no wetlands or flood plains. He stated that most of the area has been cleared of any mature vegetation. Mr. Tate stated that a one unit per acre density on these properties would not meet the intent or the purposes of what lower densities are supposed to mean in urban areas. He stated that designation of this area, as an urban growth area required previous planning efforts to provide and fund urban services such as water, sewer and storm water infrastructure. It had to do so based on the potential urban densities that would apply upon eventual annexation. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16,200t7 Page 12 Mr. Tate stated that the taxpayers funded these urban services, whereby providing the taxpayer with a certain level of commitment by the city and or the county of what type of development potential would apply to their land. He stated that if the city wanted lower densities on these lands, they should not have annexed the land and set up a development scenario that would later be changed. Mr. Tate stated that this change would result in a change to the City's land capacity and overall density. He reiterated that the Hearings Board ruled that urban areas are required to maintain an overall density of four dwelling units per acre. Mr. Tate questioned how this change would effect that requirement and what is the City's overall density at maximum buildout if this change is adopted. Mr. Tate stated that rezoning these parcels to a density of one unit per acre should not be approved. He stated that if amendments are entertained, that they focus on development standards that protect.critical areas rather than density. Mr. Tate asked staff to provide answers to the Board and the community prior to making a proposal as to how this change differs from the decisions he previously mentioned as well as how this change is justified with respect to previous Hearings Board rulings. He further asked that staff provide a general inventory of known critical areas within this area, calculate what the City's overall density would be if this change took place and what the densities would be at total build out. Chair Jon Johnson stated that this hearing will be continued to Monday, October 23 at 7:00 p.m in the City of Kent Chambers. He stated that the remainder of the people signed up to speak would be heard on that night.and that the Board will not accept any more sign ups for speaking after tonight. Mr. Johnson stated that written correspondence will be accepted up through the October 23 hearing. Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept all Exhrbits submitted for the record. Motion CARRIED. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to continue the public hearing to Monday, October 23,2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Kent's Council Chambers. Motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:55 PM. Respectfully Submitted, F ed N. Satterstrom,AICP Vecretary PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 K EN T Fax: 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Continued Public Hearing October 23,2000 The continued meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 23,2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP,Planning Mgr. Ron Harmon, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson,AICP Brad Bell Pat Fitzpatrick,Asst. City Attorney Steve Dowell Bill Wolinski,Env.Engineer Mgr. Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram,Administrative Secretary Terry Zimmerman LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT David Malik,Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the October 16,2000 minutes has been moved to November's regularly scheduled meeting. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Satterstrom stated that the following correspondence was received in Planning Services to be entered for the record: • Alan Stuckey and Marilyn Schultheis submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board, dated October 17, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#I. • Monica M. Leavitt submitted e-mail addressed to the City of Kent dated October 20, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#2. IS The Rainier Audubon Society submitted a letter dated October 18,2000 for the record as Exhibit #3. IS Frederick Mendosa with Curran Mendoza P.S. submitted a letter dated October 23, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#4. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS _ Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom stated that City Council will hold a public hearing on November 7 concerning the moratorium affecting urban separators, as designated by King County as well as those areas under consideration for addition or deletion by the Land Use and Planning Board. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes + October 23, 2000 Page 2 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY Katrina Cordi, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that her property is under consideration by the City of Kent for addition to the urban separator. She stated that she would like this land to remain at its present zoning of six units per acre and not be downzoned to one unit per acre. Ms. Cordi stated that this property has been upzoned on several occasions over the last ten years and that one purpose of the Growth Management Act is to allow for predictability in land use. Ms. Cordi clarified that the City of Kent is considering her property for addition to the urban separator in Options 3 and 4 of the staff report. Ms. Cordi stated that her parents want the same right to develop their property as has occurred around them and asked that their property not be added to the urban separator. James McKay,28449 144th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he speaks on behalf of his and his neighbor's properties, which consist of 2.25 acres each. He stated that these properties are under consideration for addition to the urban separator under Planning staff's Options 3 and 4. He stated that his property was rezoned to 6 units per acre after the City of Kent annexed the area, excessively inflating tax rates and increasing appraised land values at a higher rate than that of the residence. Mr. McKay stated that in addition to tax rate increases, storm water and drainage fees have increased threefold in the last year. He stated that the fee increases are calculated based on the area in which he lives,parcel size and based on the needs of current development projects already approved by the City of Kent. Mr. McKay stated that he and his neighbors have the additional burden of paying City of Kent excise tax on Puget Sound Power, telephone service, cable and heating oil. He stated that his community is looking for relief from the over inflated tax rates through Proposition 722 on November's ballot. Mr. McKay stated that he and his neighbors are opposed to rezoning of their property and consider this move by the City of Kent as "taking", economic profiling, unconstitutional and reeking of special interests. Mr.McKay stated that most of his neighbors are retired senior citizens living on retirement social security benefits. He stated that adding their property to the urban separator at one unit per acre represents an injustice which could force these neighbors to sell their property due to exorbitant tax rates and the j inability to develop their land. i Mr. McKay stated that the property owners should be given the choice to designate their property as urban boundaries and given tax credits if they choose to designate their property as part of the urban 1 separator. Mr. McKay recommended that this issue not be voted upon without more input from Kent's citizens in order to consider the implications these zoning changes will bring to the people living in the urban boundary areas. Mr. Kelley Mayer, 24504 148th Lane Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his one-acre parcel in the urban separator due to the rural setting. He stated that increased density in this area could cause well water contamination, forcing owners to hook up to the City of Kent's water system at enormous expense. Mr. Mayer voiced concern that if permeable surfaces are paved over for development; resulting water runoff could cause water to set on the Soos Creek Trail during the winter months. Mr. Mayer stated that he understands the concerns of other landowners not allowed to sell their land as they see fit. He stated that he is willing to set a portion of his land aside in an attempt to show his commitment for retaining the rural quality of this area and as a possible means to offset losses incurred by property owners not given increased zoning. Mr. Mayer voiced support for Option 2A to retain property density at one unit per acre. I Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 3 Tom Sharp, 24254 143rd Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA submitted a nine page report along with an anal photo and urban separator designation map indicating his property location for the record as Exhibit #5. He stated that his property located at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 240th is surrounded by the Meridian Valley Country Club on the south, Village of Soos Creek and Country Club North on the north. He stated that his 2.36 acre parcel was rezoned by the City of Kent from 1 to 4.5 units per acre three years ago and could only contain development of six homes with lot sizes ranging from 9,000 to 12,000 square feet. Mr. Sharp stated that development of his property would not degrade his neighbors land use as property on three sides of his property is zoned at 4.5 units per acre. Mr. Sharp spoke on the reasons that his property does not meet the criteria for urban separators as set forth by the City of Kent and King County. He stated that his property does not affect Soos Creek as it runs perpendicular to it. Mr. Sharp stated that the Soos Creek Sewer District extended the sewer system across 240th at his request and expense in anticipation of developing his property. He stated that storm water flows to the west and is retained on his property, flowing into a King County surface water management pond built on 132nd and 240th. He stated that all other utilities are in place. Mr. Sharp stated that although he is not vested legally, he is vested ethically. He stated that he has spent thousands of dollars in preparation for developing his property, during which time he was unaware that his land could be considered as part of the urban separator area. Mr. Sharpe stated that staff is recommending Option 2B,maintaining his property as part of the urban separator. Pam Leckington, 26125 147th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she opposes increased zoning within the county parklands. Ms. Leckington stated that 1,000 signatures were gathered in opposition to changes in this policy and over 90%of the 47th District polled are against any development in this area. Ms. Leckington stated that her community does not want the City of Kent Planning Department to redraw the map. She stated that the City of Kent should draft a policy which strengthens current urban separator policies already in place to protect this area. She stated that the policy should reflect more permanency with no loopholes for emergencies. Ms. Leckington stated that the unmatched quiet and serenity of the Soos Creek Trail is irreplaceable. She supports an option that accepts the King County designated urban separator area though she does not favor clustered housing. Mr.Terry Augerson, 15305 Southeast 244th Place,Kent,WA stated that he and his wife have lived on a five-acre parcel since 1978 and have seen vast amounts of open space diminished. He urged the Board to protect what is left of these vital open spaces around Soos Creek by retaining the current zoning of one unit per acre. Don Dvorak, 24128 145th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA urged the City of Kent to adhere to the King County Urban Separator Policy as written by King County and ratified by the City of Kent. He stated that it is imperative to protect the Soos Creek Trail. Mr. Dvorak stated that the City of Kent's attorney stated at the last meeting "that if you try to make changes to this policy, it may open the City of Kent to the possibility of litigation" and questioned if the City of Kent would be prepared to go to litigation with King County or private property owners Mr. Dvorak stated that if the City of Kent promised landowners in the urban separator that zoning would increase, these people should be compensated by the City. He stated that landowners downzoned by King County should be compensated through the County. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 4 Don Clasen, 13602 Southeast 282,Kent, WA spoke on behalf of his wife Barbara. He asked the Board to consider factoring in special circumstances in their policy-making for inclusion of the existing 20 acre wetland on and adjacent to their property site as a natural buffer and urban separator. Mr. Clasen stated that his developable parcel of 11.2 acres is obscured from view of the South Ridge development to the East due to the wetlands and existing 10 acres of setback buffers from the wetlands. Mr. Clasen stated that developing his land could assist the City of Kent in meeting its housing goals and by downzoning the land to R-1 would artificially inflate property and housing values. Mr. Clasen stated the County never informed his family that they were within an urban separator and that their land has always been zoned R-3 or R-4. Mr.Clasen urged the Board to adopt a policy for the City of Kent making it possible to use its limited developable land within this new jurisdiction, listen to its constituency and make decisions based on its citizens. Bill Williamson, 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2750, Seattle, WA 98104 submitted a letter dated October 23, 2000 with an accompanying water system facility map, storm sewer facility map and Pfaff property photos for the record as Exhibit #5. Mr. Williamson stated that he was speaking on behalf of Greta Pfaff. He stated that this property consists of 20 acres located at 124th Avenue. He stated that this property is enclosed to the north, south, and west with development and experiences drainage impacts from these offsite properties. Mr. Williamson stated that this property has existing road stubs leading onto the property as well as storm water, water and sewer systems in place on the south side of the property. He stated that roadways surrounding the property defeat connectivity with wildlife. Mr. Williamson asked the Board to consider Option 2B as this property has already been prepared for R-4.5 development,and it should remain at this _ zoning. Mr. Williamson stated that this property does not meet urban separator criteria as it can not promote animal habitat and connectivity, there are no geologically unstable areas and the land has been heavily degraded from cattle production. This property should be removed from the urban separator. i Faith Imlay,24625 148th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA voiced her concern that increased development would create excessive water runoff and flooding of the roadways as well as destabilize the hillsides above her property. Ms. Imlay stated that the Soos Creek area is environmentally sensitive and stated that this area needs a one unit per acre zoning. She asked the Board to consider a permanent protection clause for the environmentally sensitive urban separator rather than implementing a five or twenty year review period. She voiced support for Option 2A to protect the urban separator as established by King County. i Sharon Woodford MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to accept all Exhibits submitted for the record. Motion CARRIED. i Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Ron Harmon offered a MOTION to approve the staff recommendations for text amendments as presented in their staff report dated September 25, 2000 under Option 2B. This motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Under Option 2B, all properties designated on Exhibit A entitled "Kent Vicinity Urban Separators", with the additions and deletions showing on Exhibits B, C and D, are proposed for an Urban Separator/SF-1 designation on the Kent Comprehensive Plan Map and SR-1 on the Kent Zoning Map. My motion includes a text amendment under Goals and Policies under LU-20.2 to delete the existing text and replace it with the following: Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23,2000 Page 5 Allow amendments to the Urban Separators only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with King County 1994 Policy update of the Comprehensive Plan, or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety. Mr. Dowell stated that the Growth Management Act determined that the county should establish areas of protection as stated in the Soos Creek Plan. Mr.Dowell stated that the City of Kent ratified a countywide plan, which became part of Kent's comprehensive plan. Mr. Dowell stated that the City of Kent's Legal department has indicated that Kent need not give up their rights to land use regulations as a result of the County's actions. Ms. Zimmerman stated that there is a regional framework policy in place for the City of Kent to follow but questioned its applicability. She stated that Kent should be wary of creating a policy that would be inconsistent with other south King County jurisdictions. Ms. Zimmerman spoke on her concerns that citizens should be able to resubmit requests to the Board on an annual basis even if the Board recommends a policy supporting urban separators at one unit per acre. Ms. Anderson stated that the right of landowners to resubmit land use designation request changes on an annual basis before the Board is based on whether the Board allows for annual changes through the policy language, as well as if the Board adopts a five or twenty year review period. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she favors a 20-year review period. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the motion indicates that amendments to the urban separators are allowed only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with the King County 1994 Policy Updates. He stated that this policy would remain in affect until 2014 with the exception of pending danger or public safety, which would initiate an amendment by the Kent City Council Mr. Harmon stated that he initially supported the Countywide Planning Policy. However, when the City took exception to the policy by allowing upzoning in the urban separator, the City is now obligated to reach a suitable compromise for the good of the City and the landowners. He stated that landowners with vested properties should be allowed to develop their property at their current zoning. Mr.Harmon stated that the City of Kent should uphold the signed agreement with King County and honor policies,which includes the 20-year review period for consistency with King County. Mr. Harmon interpreted "emergencies" within the context of the motion by stating that this term was redefined to refer to pending danger or public safety. He stated that this definition would allow City Council, at their discretion, to amend urban separator areas. Mr. Harmon cited: in the event of an earthquake,land slides,other natural disasters or if the Fire Department needed to establish a 911 dispatch center or fire district station for the protection of the people. Ms. Woodford voiced her support of the motion for Option 2B including a 20-year review period and the inclusion of the emergency clause. She stated that downzomng property to SR-1 that is vested or already built at a higher density is a mute point and indicated that the City Maps would not match existing development if this downzoning occurred. Ms. Woodford stated that the parcels located north of Southeast 282 between 124th and 128th should be allowed to develop as they are surrounded on three sides by development with no existing wetlands. She stated that logically Mr. Sharp's property should be developed although his property is not vested. She urged the property owners within the urban separator to voice their concerns before the City Council. Ms. Zimmerman stated that while she supports preserving urban separators as defined by King County, this would result in the net loss of approximately 350 to 450 housing units. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the City of Kent is obligated to meet certain growth guidelines within the next 20 years with the intent of preserving rural areas and back filling into the urban areas. She stated that if these housing units are not i J Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 6 developed within the urban separator, than the City of Kent needs to provide alternative sites for development of these housing units. Ms. Zimmerman stated that City Council should be directed to establish housing sites other than in the valley to accommodate the 450 housing units in order to meet the City of Kent's growth guidelines. Mr. Bell stated that the net number of developable units lost with downzoning would be 757 when including the mobile home park or 654 units excluding the mobile home park. Ms.Anderson concurred. Mr. Bell stated that Ms. Woodford's statement that no downzoning would occur to existing developments is incorrect as the mobile home park would be downzoned. He stated that if the county's urban separator policy does not preclude the city from amendments, then the City would not be going against our agreement if we decide not to accept the County's policy. Mr. Bell voiced his opposition to all of the options with the exception of Option #1. He stated that he believes that many property owners are being swindled as a result of property downzoning and that property owners are precluded from applying for code amendments with the 20 year limitation in place. Mr. Bell stated that he is not aware of any other land use and planning policy precluding an individual from annually applying for a code amendment accept where the city buys the property or development rights. Mr. Bell stated that he believes the City of Kent is making arbitrary decisions on whose property to include as part of the urban separator. He stated that because of the city decisions, property owners including Mr. Sharp, whose property should not be included, are suffering. Mr. Bell stated that he is opposed to Mr.Harmon's motion. Mr. Bell stated that he would support Option #1 for no change or Option #2B with no downzones and allowing individuals to annually submit rezone applications if they desire to do so. Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr. Bell and stated that if the City of Kent desires to preserve the urban separator that they should incur the cost and feels that this principal should be incorporated as part of the Board's recommendation. Jon Johnson voiced his concern that if the Board amends the motion to delete Mr. Sharp's property from the urban separator that we may be setting precedence for deleting other properties and defeating the purpose of the urban separator. Arthur (Pat) Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Attorney,City of Kent,WA stated that the Legal Department takes the position that the City of Kent should abide by portions of LU-27 but that LU-27 goes beyond a policy statement based on prior Growth Management Board findings such as in the Snoqualmie case. He referred to a portion of LU-27 that says, "shall not be redesignated in the future within the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities." Mr. Fitzpatrick indicated that if the Board determined that Mr. Sharp's property met some exception of the Urban Separator Policy that it would be within their authority to exempt his property. He stated that the City should be cautious of deleting islands of subdivisions, which could conflict with the policy. Mr. Fitzpatrick spoke about Snoquahmie challenging the Countywide Planning Policies. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that there is the potential that the City of Kent could be sued by the county or private property owners over the way in which the Board defines the urban separator. He stated that if the urban separator adopted by the Board conflicts with the County's policy concerning the review period,zoning or allowing for annual rezone application review this could conflict with the Countywide Planning Policies. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that if the City of Kent establishes an urban separator policy, which conflicts with the Countywide Planning Policies,the county could challenge the city but would not necessarily prevail. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23,2000 Page 7 Mr. Harmon asked Ms. Anderson if she made her determination on which properties were to be deleted from the urban separator based on those properties vested by permit. Ms. Anderson concurred with the exception of one property located between 124th and 128th, north of 282nd which is surrounded by developed subdivisions. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board should approve a property owner's application for upzoning not based solely on whether their property is vested. Mr. Harmon clarified that even though the mobile home park would be zoned SR-1; it would retain its status as a residential park even if the park were sold. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that legally property is vested when a property owner files an application for a subdivision or building permit. He stated that only those people who file a development application with the city are vested. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that if someone's property was zoned 4.5 units per acre and the city wanted to preserve the owner's right to develop at this level, the property should not be rezoned to a lower density. Mr.Bell changed his position, supporting the 20-year review period. Mr. Bell MOVED and Ms. Woodford SECONDED to accept a friendly amendment to Mr. Harmon's motion on Option 2B not to downzone properties presently zoned higher than R-1. Mr. Harmon accepted and incorporated this amendment as part of his motion. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the City has the option to redefine low-density and that the urban separator policy defines low density as one unit per acre as a preservation threshold. Ms. Anderson indicated the areas within the urban separator currently designated SR-1, SR-3, SR 4.5 and SR-6. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she does not feel that it would be ethical for the City of Kent to change property owner's zoning designations previously approved by the City. She concurred with Mr. Bell that rezoning would violate people's expectations of how they can develop their land. The Board members showed empathy towards those property owners who indicated they had not been properly notified by King County that they were within an urban separator. Mr. Johnson voiced his understanding that under the proposed motion the Sharp property would remain part of the urban separator. Ms. Anderson concurred. Jon Johnson MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to accept a formal amendment to the main motion, deleting Mr. Sharp's property classification as part of the urban separator. Mr. Dowell voiced opposition to deleting Mr. Sharp's property as singling out individual parcels for removal could create legal issues although he empathizes with Mr. Sharp. Ms. Woodford concurred. Mr.Johnson stated that he offered an amendment to delete Sharp's property as this property is surrounded by developed or urban classified property and is located on the edge of the designated urban separator. Therefore, deleting this property from the urban separator would not jeopardize the concept of urban separator. Mr. Johnson stated that he believes that the Pfaff property should also be designated for deletion from the urban separator. In response to Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Bell stated that the Clasen property is located on the perimeters of the urban separator and that their application has been before the Board for zoning recommendations but without vesting. W.Bell stated that he does not support Mr.Johnson's formal amendment. Mr. Harmon voiced his opposition to Mr. Johnson's formal amendment, as the Board needs to show equity to both vested and nonvested property. October 23,2000 Page 8 Jon Johnson MOVED to amend Mr. Harmon's motion to accept Option 2B by recommending the addition of language to allow for deletion of Mr.Sharp's property from the urban separator. MOTION DIED for lack of a second. Mr.Johnson reiterated that the main motion before the Board remains as offered by Mr.Harmon with the inclusion of Mr.Bell's friendly amendment. - -Mr.Dowell stated that the City of Kent needs to show their dependability to property owners in outlying areas by remaining consistent in standing by the ratification they made to the Countywide Planning Policy. He voiced his support of the motion for Option 2B with Brad Bell's friendly amendment. Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to approve staff's recommendations for text . and map amendments as presented in staff s report dated September 25,•2000 under Option 2B. This motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Option 2B includes all properties designated on Map Exhibit A entitled "Kent Vicinity Urban Separators",with the additions and deletions of properties as shown on Map Exhibits B, C and D. The motion'includes an amendment whereby there will be no downzoning of properties.presently.zoned higher than R-1 within the urban separator. This motion includes a text amendment under Goals and Policies under LU-20.2 to delete existing text and replace it with the following: Allow amendments to.the Urban Separators only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with King County 1994 Policy update *of_the Comprehensive Plan, or by:Kent City Council initiation because ofpending danger orpublic safety. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURiYMENT Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED. Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfidly Submitted, F ed N.Satterstrom,AICP Vecretary Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: 2001 BUDGET ADOPTION ORDINANCES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their December 5, 2000 meeting, adoption of Ordinance No. >5-1 adopting the final year 2001 Operating and Capital Budget, which is the Preliminary Budget document distributed November 7, 2000 , plus summary Exhibit A, technical changes, Exhibit B. 3 . EXHIBITS: The 2001 Preliminary Budget document, Exhibit A (available at the City Clerk' s office) , ordinance, Exhibits B and memo 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilfinember moves, Councilmember / seconds a ode �tiv 4 DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B KENT WASHINGTON DATE: December 6,2000 FINANCE May Miller TO: Operations Committee Director Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller M Fax:253-856-6255 220 Fourth Ave. S. SUBJECT: 2001 Budget Kent,WA 98032-5895 Attached is the ordinance for the 2001 Budget as recommended by the Operations Committee at their December 5, 2000 meeting. The budget is summarized in Exhibit A.The amounts and detail are a combination of the Preliminary Budget presented to Council on November 7, 2000, and the technical changes listed on Exhibit B. The changes reflect(1)the technical corrections from the final balancing; (2)an additional $150,000 for traffic flow analysis from the Street Fund;and,(3)the reduction of$115,465 in the General Fund for property tax revenue decrease and the offsetting salary savings credit. This change was a result of the Operations Committee's action reducing the base tax revenue from 2.61 (Implicit Price Deflater increase)to a 2% increase to reflect the spirit of I-722. The budget does not include any other I-722 impacts which will be addressed once they are known. The budget includes both operating and capital revenue and expenditures for 2001. It is balanced as required by Washington State RCW and includes a Kent city property tax levy rate which is estimated to decrease for the fourth year in a row per the attached graph. The budget includes no new taxes or fees except the metro rate increase as levied by Metro. The budget still maintains a 10% Fund Balance which provides the needed cash flow to pay salaries and benefits for the months before property taxes are received in April and October. The fund balance also helps maintain the city's positive credit rating and provides a cushion against any economic downturn or emergency. COUNCIL MOTION Motion to approve the 2001 Budget outlined in the Preliminary Budget document plus the technical corrections in Exhibit B. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to budgets and finance and adopting the final 2001 fiscal year budget. WHEREAS, the tax estimates and budget for the City of Kent, Washington, for the 2001 fiscal year have been prepared and filed as provided by law, and the budget has been printed and distributed, and notice has been published in the official paper of the City of Kent setting the time and place for hearing, and that notice stated that all taxpayers calling at the Office of the City Clerk would be furnished a copy of the 2001 budget; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Budget Adoption. Pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075,the budget for the 2001 fiscal year, as summarized in Exhibit "A" and as set forth in the 2001 Preliminary Comprehensive Budget, which is amended by Exhibit `B," all of which are incorporated in this ordinance by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is hereby adopted in the amounts and for the purposes established in that budget as the final budget for the City's 2001 fiscal year. SECTION 2. Transmittal. The Finance Director shall transmit a complete copy of the final adopted budget to the Division of Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities. 1 2001 Budget Adoptio SECTION 3. Adjustments. City Administration shall administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A.33.120. SECTION 4. - Severabilitv. If any one or more sections, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION S. -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of passage and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE,MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 2001 Budget Adoptio PASSED: day of , 2000. APPROVED: day of , 2000. PUBLISHED: day of 12000. 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 iCiviROrdwncc�BudgMdoption-2001.doc 3 2001 Budget Adoptio 2001 Budget Ordinance Exhibit A Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTALFUNDS GENERAL FUND 58,233,048 61,964,773 (3,731,725) 9,932,633 6,200,908 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,498,206 5,784,687 (1,286,481) 1,363,100 76,619 Lodging Tax Fund 152,172 140,000 12,172 18,414 30,586 Youth/Teen Programs 634,428 745,261 (110,833) 241,756 130,923 Capital Improvement 8,451,012 8,865,573 (414,561) 2,595,343 2,180,782 Criminal Justice 2,524,101 3,383,840 (859,739) 1,371,043 511,304 Environmental Mitigation 466,753 461,119 5,634 386,496 392,130 Community Block Grant 550,114 550,114 Other Operating Projects 654,217 684,217 (30,000) 39,053 9,053 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 1,725,000 1,789,253 (64,253) 115,341 51,088 Councilmanic 6,118,894 6,118,779 115 137 252 Special Assessment 4,149,571 3,838,221 311,350 3,022,775 3,334,125 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 4.271,173 4,271,173 Parks Projects 1,834,095 1,834,095 158,422 158,422 Other Projects 265,000 1,022,701 (757,701) 757,701 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 8,586,745 8,490,284 96,461 1,966,000 2,062,461 Sewerage 22,188,794 24,686,990 (2,498,196) 4,349,189 1,850,993 Golf Complex 2,548,000 2,392,689 155,311 98,838 254,149 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 2,601,514 2,169,265 432,249 2,698,490 3,130,739 Central Services 5,837,860 5,985,519 (147,659) 211,916 64,257 Fire Equipment 343,281 500,000 (156,719) 476,165 319,446 Facilities Fund 5,312,135 5,200,357 111.778 114,739 226,517 Insurance 8,295,238 8,219,645 75,593 2,636,589 2,712,182 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 280,117 254,936 25,181 3,385,201 3,410,382 Economic Development Corp 11,475 6,171 5,304 36,189 41,493 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 150,532,943 159,359,662 (8,826,719) 35,975,530 27,148,811 LESS: Internal Service Funds 18.744,333 18,744,333 Other Transfers 17,305,327 17,305,327 TOTAL BUDGET 114,483,283 123,310,002 (8,826,719) 35,975,530 27,148,811 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON _ 2001 Budget Ordinance Exhibit B Inc(Dee) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance GOVERNMENTALFUNDS GENERAL FUND 58,348,513 62.080,238 (3,731.725) 9,932,633 6,200,908 Reduce property tax to 2.0% IPD (115,465) (115,465) (115,465) Offsetting salary savings (115.465) 115,465 115,465 Total General Fund 58,233,048 61,964,773 (3,731,725) 9,932,633 6,200,908 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Street 4,498,206 4,558,937 (60.731) 1,313,100 1,252,369 ' Technical adjustment 50,000 50,000 ' Revise Engineering remodel allocation (24,250) 24,250 24,250 Add back street capital projects 1,100,000 (1,100,000) (1,100,000) ' Add Traffic Light study 150,000 (150,000) (150,000) Total Street Fund 4,498,206 5,784,687 (1,286,481) 1,363,100 76,619 Lodging Tax Fund 152,172 140,000 12,172 18,414 30,586 Youth/Teen Programs 634,428 745,261 (110,833) 241,756 130,923 Capital Improvement Fund 8,451,012 8,958,573 (507,561) 2.595,343 2,087,782 ' Adjust Clarke Lake- Intertie debt service (93,000) 93,000 93,000 Total Capital Improvement Fund 8.451,012 8,865,573 (414,561) 2,595,343 2,180,782 Criminal Justice 2,524,101 3.383,840 (859,739) 1,371,043 511,304 Environmental Mitigation 466,753 461,119 5,634 386,496 392,130 Community Block Grant 550,114 550.114 Other Operating Projects 504,217 534,217 (30,000) 39,053 9,053 Add Traffic Light study 150,000 150,000 Total Other Operating Projects 654,217 684,217 (30,000) 39,053 9,053 DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Voted 1,725,000 1,789,253 (64,253) 115,341 51,088 Councilmanic 5,845,894 5,845,779 115 137 252 Reclassify Clark Lake debt service 273,000 273,000 Total Councilmanic Debt 6,118,894 6,118,779 115 137 252 Special Assessment 4,149,571 3,838,221 311.350 3,022,775 3,334,125 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Street Projects 3,171.173 3,171,173 ' Add back street projects 1,100,000 1,100,000 Total Street Fund 4.271,173 4,271,173 Parks Projects 2,200,095 2,200,095 158,422 158,422 Adjust Clarke Lake debt service (93,000) (93,000) Reclassify Clark Lake to debt service (273,000) (273,000) Total Parks Projects 1,834,095 1,834.095 158,422 158,422 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON 2001 Budget Ordinance Exhibit B Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending in Fund Fund Fund Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance Other Projects 265,000 1,022,701 (757,701) 757,701 PROPRIETARY FUNDS ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 8,586,745 8,117,534 469,211 4,223,276 4,692,487 Revise Engineering remodel allocation (24,250) 24,250 24,250 ' Add back Water projects 397,000 (397,000) (397,000) ' Revise estimated project beginning balance (2,257,276) (2,257,276) Total Water Fund 8,586,745 8,490,284 96,461 1,966,000 2,062,461 Sewerage 22,054,331 21,458,027 596,304 4,349,189 4,945,493 Pass through Metro Rate Increase 134,463 134,463 Revise Engineering remodel allocation 48,500 (48,500) (48,500) Add back Sewerage projects 3,046,000 (3,046,000) (3,046,000) Total Sewerage Fund 22,188,794 24,686,990 (2,498.196) 4,349,189 1,850,993 Golf Complex 2,548,000 2,392,689 155,311 98,838 254,149 ,4TERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Equipment Rental 2,601,514 2,169,265 432,249 2,698,490 3,130,739 Central Services 5,837,860 5,985,519 (147,659) 211,916 64,257 Fire Equipment 343,281 603,000 (259,719) 798,944 539,225 Adjust estimated beginning balance (322,779) (322,779) Adjust repairs budget (103,000) 103,000 103,000 Total Fire Equipment 343,281 500,000 (156,719) 476,165 319,446 Facilities Fund 5,312,135 5,200,357 111,778 114,739 226,517 Insurance 8,295,238 8,219,645 75,593 2,636,589 2,712,182 FIDUCIARY FUNDS TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS Firemen's Pension 280,117 254,936 25,181 3,385,201 3,410,382 Economic Development Corp 11,475 6,171 5,304 36,189 41,493 TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 150.532,943 159,359,662 (8,826,719) 35,975,530 27,148,811 LESS: Internal Service Funds 18,744,333 18,744,333 Other Transfers 17,305,327 17.305,327 TOTAL BUDGET 114,483,283 123,310,002 (8,826,719) 35,975,530 27,148,811 City of Kent PROPERTY TAX RATES @ 2.0% PROPERTY TAX ON A $200,000 HOME $680 $660 TOTAL CITY TAX $640 LEVY $620 $600 - $580 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 YEAR * 2001 rates are based on King County's uncertified assessed valuation information These numbers include an estimated increase in the valuation of state assessed public utilities of$19,019,900, consistent with the overall valuation increase. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 General Fund Levy Rate 2.992 2.994 2.927 2.921 2.778 Voted Issues Levy Rate 0.382 0.361 0.312 0.283 0.238 Total Levy Rate 3.374 3.355 3.239 3.204 3.016 Annual City of Kent tax levy on a $200,000 home (1) 674.80 671.00 647.80 640.80 603.18 Monthly average tax on a $200,000 home 56.23 55.92 53.98 53.40 50.27 (1)Amounts are based on constant dollars&do not include King County Assessed value increases. PROPERTY TAX - BUDGET ESTIMATES Assumes Implicit Price Deflator is applied to last year's actual levy, assessed valuation overall increases by 7.89% per King County preliminary estimates. Before any adjustments required by Initiative 722. Implicit Price Deflator is : 2.61% Based on CPI used for labor contracts 3.90% 2.0% as in 1-722 Regular levy Increase 2000 Regular Levy was : 18,897,553 2001 Proposed Regular Levy Increase in dollars 377,951 Increase as a percentage 2.00% Plus estimated effects of new construction, improvements and increases in the value of state assessed property 477,188 Plus annexation levy 32,379 .Mther adjustments 34,856 Total regular tax levy 19,8191927 Change from Preliminary Budget (116,466) Levy for Voted Debt Obligations: 1,700,000 Total Levy request 21,519,927 Levy Rates : 2000 a@ 2.0% General Fund Levy Rate 2.9210 2.7779 Voted Issues Levy Rate 0.2830 0.2383 Total Levy Rate 3.2040 3.0161 Prop Tax Options.xis 12/06/2000 )01�1 Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: METRO SEWER RATE INCREASE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: King County (Metro) has increased its rate for sewage treatment from $19 . 50 to $19 . 75 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 to be effective January 1, 2001 as proposed on the attached table . It is the Public Works Committee ' s recommendation that this ordinance be adopted establishing the sewer service rate increase . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-1) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember LALL moves, Councilmember 14)"eO,4 seconds that Ordinance No. 35 38 be adopted establishing the Sewer Rate increase to be effective January 1 , 2001 . DISCUSSION: ACTION: L Council Agenda Item No. 7C GQ' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '2 December 12, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don WickstromPublic Works Director SUBJECT: Sewer Rate Increase This issue was presented to the Public Works Committee at their November 20th meeting. It received a 2 to 1 vote in support of passing the rate increase on to our customers. The rate increase totals 26 cents a month or a 1% increase to our residential customers. The proposed increase is strictly the result of an increase in Metro's rate it charges the City for treatment of our sewage. Their rate increase becomes affective January 1st. Their rate increase is part of their financial plan to address the needs identified in their 6-Year Capital Improvement Plan. The total financial impact on the sewer utility's operating costs is about$120,000 a year. This may not sound like much but last year when we increased the sewer rate to account for both a Metro and a City need we did so based on financial projections that the remaining unencumbered fund balance for the fund would remain fairly flat varying between $500,00 to $600,000 over the next several years. We felt comfortable with that amount as we could draw on it to address an unforeseen emergency that could arise in the sewer system. If you will note $500,000 or$600,000 doesn't go very far should we have a break in the sewer system in the valley. By absorbing the Metro rate increase we're eating away at the sewer system's emergency contingency funds. As presented at the committee meeting the Public Works Department supports passing this Metro increase on to our customer. Rate increases are never pleasant but this is one solely initiated by Metro and because our utility bill distinctly denotes the Metro charge, this increase would show up as a Metro increase. MP2070 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 20, 2000 TO: Public Works Commi ee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Sewer Rates King County (Metro) has increased its rate for sewage treatment from $19.50 to $19.75 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. It is the Public Works Department's recommendation that the sewer rates be increased as proposed herein and on the attached table with the effective date thereof beginning January 1, 2001. MOTION: Recommend to full Council adoption of an Ordinance establishing the sewer service rate increase as proposed herein. MP2065 Proposed Sewer Increase 2000 2001 Metro Portion 19.50 19.75 City Charge 7.68 7.69 Subtotal 27.18 27.44 % Increase 1% ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, adjusting the scheduled charges for sewer service inside the City limits due to King County fee increases. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3487, passed on November 16, 1999, which was readopted, re-enacted, ratified and confirmed by Ordinance No. 3534 on December 5, 2000, established certain sewer rates effective December 31, 1999; and WHEREAS, King County has increased its rate for sewage treatment from $19.50 to $19.75 per month per residential equivalent (750 cubic feet of sewage); and WHEREAS, the Public Works Committee has recommended that this increase, including the associated utility tax thereon, be passed along to the City's customers; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: 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 sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the City limits are in effect on the dates and in the amounts listed below. 1 Sewer Rate Increas Type of Service Charge per month Effective tH44 Effective on Deeembe-3r n i>ovei-_fAhe- 2, r 4444throueh -144WJanuary 1. December 31, 2001 2000 1. Single-family residential dwelling, as S2643$27.18 92�;.18$27.44 defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC. 2. Two-family or multiple-family residential $25-33$27.18 $27.1 8$27.44 dwelling, as defined in Ch. 15.02 KCC, each unit separately charged. 3. Single-family residential/Lifeline: $29 44-$24.56 $24.56 24.82 Eligibility criteria for Lifeline Rate shall be established by City Council. 4. All other than single-family residential, $3-38$3.63 $-3:C}3$3.66 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 less than $XX 18$27.44. SECTION 2. The adjusted fees are for services beginning January 2001, which shall apply retroactively to January 1, 2001 on 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. 2 Sewer Rate Increas 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 , 2000. APPROVED: day of , 2000. PUBLISHED: day of 12000. 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 PACMAOrdinmcclSew Chuge.a nd 123100 d= 3 Sewer Rate Increas Kent City Council Meeting Date December 12 , 2000 Category Bids 1 . SUBJECT: PERMIT CENTER AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening which was held on November 17 , 2000 for the Permit Center and Planning Department Renovations resulted in eight bids . Ferrell Penning was the low bidder at $798 , 500 . The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director recommends awarding the contract to Ferrell Penning. 3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $798 , 500 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Councilmanic Bonds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember � rD ?'moves, Councilmember seconds to enter into an agreement with Ferrell Penning for the Permit Center and Planning Department Renovations project in the amount of $798, 500, plus Washington State Sales Tax. DISCUSSION: ACTION: 1 G Council Agenda Item No. 8A BID RESULTS FOR CITY OF KENT CENTENNIAL CENTER REMODEL FOR PLANNING/PERMIT CENTER BID OPENING 2:15 PM November 17, 2000 Ferrell Penning $798,500 Bailey-Berg LLC $802,122 R.Miller Inc. $810,000 DPlnc. $823,284 Chase Contractors $831,314 Design Annex Inc. $849,676 Flagg Construction $884,084 c.. Stouder General Const. $911,437 REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE D. PUBLIC WORKS E. PLANNING COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: May Miller, Norm Angelo, Trisha King-Stargel, Debra LeRoy, Cliff Craig, Tom Brubaker, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:02 PM. FY2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant was added to the agenda as item number 4. :approval of Minutes of October 17. 2000 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Approval of Vouchers dated October 13, 2000 Judy Woods moved to recommend approval of vouchers dated October 31, 2000. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. _ Purchase of Fire Apparatus Fire Chief Norm Angelo said Fire and Life Safety uses an Apparatus Replacement Fund to replace apparatus over a period of time, and in addition, councilmanic bonds were recently issued for two replacement fire engines that had to be replaced unexpectedly. Citv code allows the City to buy off the bid of other jurisdictions, and after research, it was found that by tagging onto the bid of an out-of-state jurisdiction (which met legal requirements), that a significant amount of money could be saved on the purchase of apparatus that would meet the needs of the City. These new apparatus are more expensive than the last ones purchased, however the quality is greater and the accessories will add to a more effective operation. Safety warning devices can be used for the public, for example a light indicator on the back of the apparatus that has an arrow to tell the public which direction to go. There would be the additional use of compressed air foam, which technology has been proven to be extremely valuable in preventing exposure. That device shoots foam that will stick on wall interiors and has been used very successfully in knocking down fires faster and minimizing water damage. The apparatus meets the needs of the Department and provides increased ground clearance and safety, and maintains the flexibility to deliver fire service and emergency medical services out of the same vehicle, particularly important when relating to a disaster. The Fire District is looking to purchase a fire engine aid car with $500,000 dedicated funds available from the Apparatus Replacement Fund. Three other apparatus were due for replacement a year ago. The fourth apparatus would be sold to Fire District 37, with whom the Department has a preexisting contract and they would provide the money up- Operations Committee, 11/7/00 Page 2 front prior to any payment being made to the manufacturer. The City would buy and pay for three apparatus, which would include the two that had to be replaced. Buying in quantity reduces the cost of each apparatus, and buying now will save an expected 3% price increase. By buying four apparatus at one time, between $25,000 and $30,000 per apparatus can be saved, and at the same time the process expedited within the law. The City of Las Vegas bought off the same bid and saved much more by purchasing a larger volume of vehicles. Chief Angelo said the legal department had reviewed the purchase agreements, and purchase authorization had been obtained from the Mayor. Tim Clark expressed concern about the increasing traffic patterns and the availability of aid cars to get to sites, particularly during peak hour traffic. He asked if the Department had a vision to focus more on simple aid cars instead of the general dual use vehicles. Chief Angelo said aid cars would be a supplement but not a replacement to engine aids because there would then be the inability to suppress fire or cover other emergencies without the engine capability. The new apparatus are no bigger or longer and other functionality is built in. Because of simultaneous and back-to-back calls, there must be a minimum level of water delivery capability with each apparatus in a nearby zone. All firefighters are trained as emergency medical technicians and so the flexibility to use them in those roles as situations pop up has been maximized. The Strategic Plan will be looking at the addition of aid cars as additional units, once the basic response and pumping capability in each of the seven basic zones are established. Chief Angelo said the number of alarms in Kent will be about 13,400 this year, the highest in South King Countv. Aid cars would give a great advantage in handling multiple alarms, and they will be part of the future vision. Rico Yingling asked if the third unit would be an addition to the existing apparatus or would be a replacement. Chief Angelo said none of the units would be additional units. A number of apparatus are due for replacement and the department has been trying to live with what's practical over time without compromising safety. At a minimum, three new units are needed right now. Two of the older units will be advertised for bid and sold at the best price, bringing in thousands of dollars per each apparatus that would go back into the Fund and offset some of the cost of adding new apparatus. In response to Rico Yingling's question about King County Fire District 37, Chief Angelo said District 37 and the City of Kent has had an ongoing relationship for over 30 years of providing services and mutual automatic aid. In a contract for services, Kent personnel staffs the response apparatus in District 37, and the Fire District contracts for emergency response and several other services that along with that. In essence, they are part of the Kent Fire Department although the contract is with the City (which is why the City can purchase the 4` apparatus and then have the Fire District pay for the equipment prior to the City's payment to the manufacturer). The apparatus will not be paid for until at least the middle of next year and the funds would be locked in place. May Miller offered an amendment to the motion to read "purchase the four engine aid apparatus with one being reimbursed by Fire District 37 and approve the associated budget change". Operations Committee, 1117/00 Page 3 Tim Clark moved that the item be placed on the Council Consent Calendar for the November 21, 2000 meeting, authorizing the Mayor to sign a contract with Pierce Manufacturing to purchase four engine/aid apparatus with one being reimbursed from Fire District 37, and approval of the associated budget change. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. FY2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Police Department Trainer Trisha King-Stargel said the grant application request had initially come before the Committee in August, 2000, and was then brought back in October. The grant was received, and permission is needed to accept the grant and to provide for matching funds. After research, staff found that the Department qualified for the Public Safety Officers Health Benefits included in the Federal Grant, which raised the amount of the matching fonds by S793 because the base amount of the grant was raised. The total matching funds increased from $7,143 to $7,936. Judy Woods moved to approve the accepted, corrected award and match amounts for FY2000 (LLEBG). The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. LID Bond— Arbitrage Audit and Budget Change May Miller said the City is required to submit proof or have proof on hand that arbitrage on the bonds issued had been calculated (specifically LID bonds). Money is borrowed at one interest rate and then invested until it is spent. When the money was actually spent has to be proved and at what rate it was invested, so an audit will be done on City Revenue Bonds and General Obligation Bonds. Only a couple of firms in the state actually do this kind of complicated calculation, and the Finance Officers Convention has recommended using Arbitrage Compliance Specialists. The firm will calculate whether the City owes any money back to the IRS on 17 LID's from the period of 1986-1998. Funds are available to pay for the audit out of the LID Guarantee Fund. It will cost $45,612. Ms. Miller said the laws have changed four times since the City began doing LID bonds. The chosen firm will take the City's official statement to market, and it's up to the City to prove that the money was not invested at a higher rate than what it was borrowed at. If it was, some money may have to be paid back. Usually that is caused by an accident of the market because of the interest rate bouncing around and there not being knowledge of when the funds will all be spent. There may also be some funds due back if the City has over-invested. Rico Yingling asked if the process was related to the LID bond underwriter issue brought at the last meeting. Ms. Miller said the LID underwriter helps issue the bonds but doesn't do the audit and calculation. Tim Clark moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Arbitrage Compliance Specialists, Inc to audit combined LID's for the period of 1986 to 1998 Operations Committee, 11/7/00 Page 4 and approve establishing a budget of$45,612 with funds from the LID Guarantee Fund. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. September Finance Report May Miller handed out the September Finance Report. In the General Fund (which is the primary City fund to be watched through September), the graph on Page 10 showed that revenue was running 4.4% or S1,575,000 over budget. Last year at this time it was about 1% over budget. Page 12 showed that Property Tax was coming in right on budget. Property Tax is usually collected at about 98%. Sales Tax is more volatile and can go up or down based on the economy and timing. Through September it was 7.6% over budget. Last year Sales Tax ran under budget through the end of the year, so this year it shows a particularly strong indication of the good economy right now. The Page 14 pie graphs showed the year-to-date figures and percentages of increases for each category. Wholesaling was up 18.2% over last year and Retail Trade 11.8%. Retail was probably influenced by the opening of Home Depot and the Asian Mall, but has overall been above last year's figures in the area and nationwide. On the downside, Contracting was very flat, almost equal to last year. Services was 8.7% under last year and Manufacturing 3.1% under last year in actual dollars. Those two categories are where the manufacturing exemption is taken. Page 15 showed that the Utility Tax was 7.2% over budget,predominantly because of telephone and cable usage. The Building Permit area was still very strong, 9.1% over budget just for permits. Page 17 represented the value of those permits which was 8.3% over last year. Recreation Fees were figured conservatively because the budget was a bit short the previous year. Page 18 showed that Recreation Fees were 16.4% over budget, and the budget has been adjusted to pick that trend up for next year. On Page 19, the Fines and Forfeits revenue collection had leveled off and was 3.7% over budget, a food increase over last year. The flow of water rates was affected by the change to a tier rate system which bills every other month instead of once a month, but overall the Water Fund was right on budget. The same applied to Drainage and Sewer revenue (shown on Page 20), which was a bit under because of a refund adjustment based on the old rate but was still 1.2% within budget. Golf Course revenue increases, shown on Page 22, were on the City side. The 18 Hole, for the first 9 months of this year was S96,000 over last year, the 9 Hole was $27,000 over, and the Driving Range $27,000 over. Revenue was down in the sale of food and merchandise because the restaurant was closed all summer and didn't open until the end of August. The City side of the revenue was up $162,000 over last year. The merchandise side of the original budget was put in before the new contract, and probably a budget change will be processed and then brought back to Committee since the merchandise doesn't run through the City's account now and the budget doesn't reflect that. Tim Clark commented that with the type of restaurant now at the golf course, winter sales should be up over the normal. Operations Committee, 11/7/00 Page 5 Ms. Miller said the General Fund Adjustments column on Page 23 shows the ups or downs from what was established in the original budget. The biggest area was Sales Tax, which is anticipated to remain at the same level as now. Utility Tax and Licenses/Permits were both very strong. A budget change will be processed for the I-695 add-back because it was included twice. Overall, the General Fund looks good, and the Estimated Actual column is correct and will be used to prepare next year's budget. Tim Clark questioned the large negatives under Cost Allocation and.Expenditures. Ms. Miller said that if positions weren't filled they couldn't be charged back, for example to projects in Public Works. If there was a savings on the salary side, then it couldn't be billed on the Cost Allocation side. In answer to Rico Yingling's question concerning the 2000 Adjustments column, Ms. Miller said staff looks at the original budget and then decides whether figures would be more or less than the budget through the end of the year. Those figures are then added to the budget for the total. Property Tax showed a minus, which means collections would only be at 98%. Sales Tax showed that $1,000,000 would be added to the $14,000,000 budget to end the year at 515,000,000. Ten Year Forecast May Miller handed out the Ten Year Forecast. She commented that the Valley Economic Update provided by Hubert Research showed a statistical survey of a certain number of businesses in all areas that were phoned and asked a series of questions. It was found that the Kent valley's core economic GDP is almost equal to that of the Eastside. The businesses were asked if they expected to grow in the next three years and 35.8% of the firms said they expected to grow up to 4%. 38% said they expected to grow more than that. Rico Yingling commented that the survey had found that the actual growth rate in the last two years in the Kent valley area was actually the highest growth rate in all of King County. Ms. Miller commented that the City participates in the update every two years to keep an eye on the Gross Domestic Product and to see how it's doing compared to the two years before. All the latest economic information in the proposed budget was added to a spreadsheet for the long-range forecast. The graph on Page 2 showed that the City would be in good shape until about 2006. That graph factored in the current Sales Tax, the history of the Property Tax using the IDP, what was known about the COLAs and what the state had forecasted on COLAs. The last page showed the assumptions for 2001, which factor was used to prepare next year's budget. 2002 through 2010 showed the major assumptions adjusted up or down. It was assumed the COLA would be at about 3% and the IDP at 2.4%. Mr. Yingling asked what the assumption was for health benefits rates. Ms. Miller said rates had increased 15% last year and 20% this year. The unions agreed to some cost _ savings, so the assumption for increase was reduced down to 2.4% for the future, which should stabilize medical so such huge increases aren't needed. The large increases over Operations Committee, i in/oo Page 6 the last two years were needed to shore up that fund, but part of the planning is to look at co-pays and cost savings to get back in control and more in line with the IDP. Population was used as a factor as affected by growth based on the Comprehensive Plan. The census figures, once received, will be looked at because the shared revenue from the state is population driven. No annexations were added as that would have also added to the population, thus adding revenue and expenditures. Even though the forecast was based on the very latest financial report and the latest information included in the budget, the election vote is not known or what will happen to the property tax or the economy. The forecast took today's trends and provided a model to watch, and if anything changes, the model can quickly be modified to reflect the change. To date,the model looks okay. It provides a 1% staffing increase.(which is about seven positions in the General Fund per year), and a 3% COLA for the future. Those assumptions would be modified if revenue came in less or other factors affected the model. Budget Calendar May Miller handed out a Budget Calendar. She mentioned that the proposed Budget would be presented at that night's Council Workshop, and a public hearing held in two weeks. The budget was to be brought back to the November 21, 2000 and December 5, 2000 Operations Committees for review and would then be adopted at the Council Meeting of December 12, 2000. The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Judy Woods, Tom Brotherton (sitting in for Tim Clark at beginning of meeting), Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Brent McFall, May Miller, Roger Lubovich, Sue Viseth, Dena Laurent, Leona Orr, Cyndi Wilbur, Tom Vetsch, John Hodgson, Don Wickstrom, Fred Satterstrom, Tom Brotherton, Jacki Skaught, Joe Lorenz, Jackie Bicknell The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:34 PM. One item was added to the agenda: Review Budget Memo of 10 Year Projections. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 2000 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 2000. The motion was seconded by substitute Committee Member Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Approval of Vouchers dated November 15, 2000 Tom Brotherton moved to approve the vouchers of November 15, 2000. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Telecommunications RFP—Approval Technical Services Manager Joe Lorenz said the City has used Qwest dial-tone services for the last seven years. With the expiration of the agreement, a competitive bid request was sent out for dial-tone services, which are the telephone lines used for calls coming into and going out of the City. Focal Communications responded to the bid request and proposed the use of an ISDN technology which provides 24 channels. Focal's rate was very attractive compared to what the Citv is currently paying and would save S 12,000 annually. The competitive process has allowed for lower dial-tone costs and also has provided a diverse path, which in the event of an unforeseen disaster sives the additional flexibility of keeping the dial-tone up and running. A second location for services would be at Fire Station 75. Tom Brotherton asked if there would be risks in going with a new company that was the lone bidder to the RFP. Mr. Lorenz said Focal Communications has a diverse and stable background of offering fiber optic services across the nation for multiple providers including Sprint, AT&T, and World Com. Several other companies were interested, but Focal was the only company who was actually able to bring the dial-tone service into the Kent area. In response to Rico Yingling's question, Joe Lorenz said there will still be some services provided by Qwest from the central office (which is two blocks from City Hall) called the last leg. Some circuits or"off-premise-extensions" are only provided by Qwest, but it will be Focal's switching equipment that switches the calls when they are placed. Mr. Yingling questioned whether the City might lose$12,000 in service quality by dealing with a different company for dial-tone service when that company has to deal with Qwest on disconnect or other problems. Mr. Lorenz said he shared that same concern, but in troubleshooting problems between other companies, Nortel and Qwest for example, there haven't been any significant Operations Committee, 11/21/00 Page 2 problems with finger pointing, and he didn't think there would be a loss in service quality by going with Focal. Judv Woods moved to recommend to Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a Multi-year agreement for communication services with Focal Communications Corporation, subject to the approval of the Director of Information Technology and the City Attorney or their designee. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Tim Clark arrived and took his place at the committee table. 2001 Kent Reporter Contract Chief Administrative Officer Brent McFall said the 2001 Kent Reporter contract is for the publication of the City's monthly newsletter, and has been ongoing for almost two years. Through mail distribution, the City's newsletter page goes out to 28,000 postal customers and is the best way to get City news into peoples' homes. City staff is responsible for the content of the newsletter and for delivering a camera ready copy to the Kent Reporter who prints and includes it in their newspaper. Tim Clark asked if cost comparisons were holding steady from last year to this year. Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Dena Laurent said there had been a nominal cost increase for color. Rico Yingling commented that the Community Survey had shown the Kent Reporter to be highly read last year, but this year's survey received a lower score after a change in the question. Mr. McFall said he thought the paper was very well read. The question in last year's survey had asked people how they got information about the City of Kent and included a source list. This year's question asked how information about the City was received without providing the list and people had to recall from memory as to how they got information. Mr. McFall said the question will be asked again next year in the same way it was asked the first year to give a good comparison of responses. Tim Clark moved to recommend to Council approval of the 2001 Kent Reporter contract for publication and distribution of the City's community newsletter, Kent Connections. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Intergovernmental Affairs Consulting Contract Brent McFall said the City had contracted with Doug Levy for Intergovernmental Affairs services for about 18 months. Mr. Levy has proved invaluable in carrying the City's message to Olympia and working with both houses of the legislature in seeking legislation that the City supported and making clear the City's position with legislation that was opposed. He has also been a tireless worker for the City on funding issues, particularly those related to transportation. Kent also receives cost benefits and other benefits from Mr. Levy's efforts on behalf of other cities when he's not representing the City of Kent. Mr. McFall said the contract is minimal compared to the benefits and is not to exceed $3,274.99 per month plus expenses. Operations Committee, 11/21/00 Page 3 Tim Clark acknowledged Mr. Levy's services in helping the Suburban Cities Association and the City of Kent with the complex issues that the Tri County Committee has been involved with, and also in keeping track of various Transportation Coalition Group project suggestions that would have been harmful to South King County and specifically to Kent. Mr. Clark said this particular contract would cover an extremely contentious legislative session because of the various effects of initiatives and claims on the state's general funding. He highly recommended Mr. Levy and stated that Council has seen how Doug Levy works and knows he works well for the City of Kent. Judy Woods moved to recommend to Council approval of the Intergovernmental Affairs Consulting Contract for the period of January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 with Doug Levy for the amount not to exceed $45,000. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark. In further communications, Rico Yingling commented that he liked receiving the status reports Mr. Levy sends out on a regular basis as they keep him aware of the progress being made on the different legislative issues. Mr. Yingling also commended Dena Laurent on the work she had done in lobbying state legislators, and said that she and Mr. Levy both work to make sure they hear what the Council wants in its voice for the citizens and the stakeholders of the community. The motion was voted on and passed 3-0. Public Disclosure Index—Ordinance City Attorney Roger Lubovich said the state's Public Document Act has a provision that requires agencies, including municipalities, to maintain an index of all or a number of their public documents. The Act also provides that cities may issue an order directing that they do not have to maintain such an index if it would be unduly burdensome or interfere with the operations of the city. At the annual WCIA Municipal Attorneys Conference, it was announced that virtually no jurisdiction keeps such an index, and a number of jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that exempt them from doing so. The proposed ordinance would allow the City of Kent to be exempt from compiling and maintaining such an index, as virtually every document that comes into the City is a public document and maintaining an index of all of the City's public records on a centralized system would not be practical and would be unduly burdensome. Those indexes that the City would maintain would be made available for public inspection, for copying, or as a source for identifying other public documents. Tim Clark moved to recommend to Council approval of an ordinance exempting the City from the requirement of maintaining a current index of public records. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Mr. Lubovich said the item had been put on that night's Council meeting agenda under Other Business in order to expedite the process. Accounts Receivable Write Off Finance Director May Miller said the State Auditor recommends that the City review its Accounts Receivables every year and that they be written off if they become two years old. Staff _ is requesting to have two years of Accounts Receivables, amounting to $52,902.97 or 1.4%, written off. Part of the write-offs are due to traffic accidents where someone has hit a light pole or damaged a sign, etc. Finance works with the Public Works Department and the Police to Operations Committee, 11/21/00 Page 4 collect as much as possible. Insurance companies are notified and sometimes the money is recovered, but often the person doesn't have insurance or he's out of state or there's a lack of information. Some people file bankruptcies and Finance works with the Legal Department or others to determine if it is worthwhile to continue trying to collect. The current write off includes some LIDS, part of which were assessments that were reviewed and deemed not to be proper. Rico Yingling commented that half of the write-off amount was from one particular contractor for a sewer line dispute, and asked if there was any back up information on that case. Ms. Miller said that Finance had worked with the Legal Department to determine the account was not provable in court or worth the collection effort. She said she could find out more specific information. Customer Service Manager Tom Vetsch said the issue was still in dispute, even though based on the legal recommendation it wasn't likely the City would win the case due to City error. He said the insurance may still pay off, but at this point it's best to write the debt off. Judy Woods moved to recommend to Council approval of the write off for 1999/2000 past due accounts receivable of$52,902.97. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Increase Change Account— Ordinance May Miller said there were about 15 miscellaneous kinds of change funds and petty cash accounts in the City and every year an audit is done to make sure that the needs haven't changed or that the amounts are sufficient. This year, the change account needs to be raised for the Golf Course operation because the City is in charge of the cashiers at Riverbend and more change is needed to start the cashier drawers. The recommendation is to increase the change account from $2500 to S6000. Tim Clark moved to recommend that the Council authorize amending Section 3.41.020 of the Kent City Code to increase the Change Account from $2500 to $6000. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. 2001 Budget Review May Miller said the budget review process was to allow time for any questions or suggestions for the 2001 Budget. The official ordinance would be taken to the Operations Committee on December 5, 2000, and would incorporate any adjustments or technical change discoveries. Some of the changes that have been identified are a refund for money that isn't needed next year because equipment was replaced this year, a refund for a double budgeted amount, and some reductions for Public Works. Finance staff met with Public Works Director Don Wickstrom and went over every capital project in the Street, Water, and Sewer and Drainage Funds. One item had been missed in error and a few others were identified where money was available but the projects hadn't been included. Ms. Miller said a letter had been received from King County dealing with Initiative 722. The letter provided a worksheet with new construction reevaluations but didn't include the state utility piece. Even though the information is incomplete, it did give needed numbers earlier than usual and the state utility piece is not a significant amount. Because of the uncertainly of Operations Committee, 11/21/00 Page 5 Initiative 722 (for which a lawsuit has been filed), the letter said that the very earliest there would be an idea of the impact would be December 15`h, and that is after the information is required to be adopted. Based on information given, staff did an assessment and technical ordinance. The preliminary budget graph shows what the dollar amount of tax would be on a S200,000 home. In 1997, a S200,000 homeowner paid $674 a year to Kent in property taxes. The rate has continued to go down since then and, using the incomplete numbers, has dropped to about$606.40 a year. Divided on a monthly basis, that amounts to $53.50 per month for a $200,000 home to provide for police, fire, parks, road maintenance and sanding, and all the other services that are rendered by the City of Kent. Those figures do not include the assessed valuation increases, but right now the average home price in Kent is less than $200,000. Brent McFall said 1-722 limits total growth in assessment value to 2% on a property by property basis. In a certain market situation one piece of property could be appreciating rapidly at a 10% per year rate, but its assessed value growth would be limited to 2%. On another piece of property whose value was not escalating as rapidly, the rate would only go up the amount of the actual assessed value increase if it was less than 2% and be limited to 2% otherwise. One of the concerns about the initiative is the disparity that it creates between more rapidly appreciating properties and less rapidly appreciating properties since property in a region does not all increase at the same rate at the same time due to market variations, locations, etc. That creates uncertainty to budgeters, and until better information is received, the recommendation (and best advice from the Association of Washington Cities and other entities) is to proceed with the budget review and to go ahead and adopt the budget if Council is comfortable with it as presented by the Mayor. Any amendments can be made and the budget adopted and the pieces allowed to fall into place later. May Miller added that a rate can be adopted and then made lower but not higher. Before Initiative 722, the original budget included the Referendum 47 implicit price deflator of 2.61%, and the graph is figured on that percentage. If that were lowered to 2%, the dollar amount of the difference between the rates would be S 115,465. At 0% it would be close to $500,000. The retro effect could be $1-3,000,000, as it's not known how the initiative will be interpreted and how it may be recalculated based on time. Brent McFall said the only true new budget initiative for the City in 2001 is the plans for the Corrections Facility using an active inmate work crew. That facility will provide services to benefit the community as well as the inmates themselves. The 2001 budget also enhances the City's ability to provide everyday services and continues to address public safety and transportation issues. Mr. McFall mentioned that he had prepared and handed out, at the request of Councilmember Tom Brotherton, a three page memorandum that attempted to correlate what's been done and what's proposed in the budget to the five Strategic Goals Council adopted of Valued Government Services, Effective Transportation System, Safe Community, Vibrant Downtown, and Strong Local Economy. He said staff began working on relating the budget initiatives to the Strategic Goals in 1999 and has worked on that through the year 2000. A lot of the things are starting to come to fruition, but that will be an ongoing activity and expenditure of funds in staff time. Judy Woods asked if the budget could be passed on December 12`h even though all the necessary figures weren't available and then be brought back for a readjustment. Brent McFall said a Operations Cornn ittee, 11/21/00 Page 6 readjustment could be done, and staff is mindful of the I-722 issue and the amount of uncertainty that it creates. Even if Council approved the budget as presented, new positions would not be filled until there was a better sense of what was going to happen. Review Budeet Memo of 10 Year Proiections Rico Yingling commented that the long term projections and conservative estimates showed that in 5-6 years the City won't have enough money to pay its bills. He asked what preparations were being made for that eventuality, given the current climate of voters for any new taxes. Brent McFall said the City has to find ways within its current tax structure to generate additional income to fund the services that customers or taxpayers say they want. There is oftentimes a disconnect for people between the service, and the cost of the service and the willingness to pay for it. The City is working very hard to try to grow the local economy in Kent. The graphs show some of the potential impacts of things that staff is working on, but they are only projections. The first graph comes right out of the budget document and shows that in 2008 expenditures begin to exceed revenues. The second graph is based upon medical cost containment efforts and lines on the graph are pushed out a year before they cross. The third graph pushes the crossed lines out another year or so by anticipating revenue generated from some very limited downtown redevelopment. A major downtown renaissance could ultimately be created, improving the picture even more, but that is not projected at this point. The fourth graph is based on a concept for new high-tech businesses that didn't exist a few years ago. One business is the Internet Service Provider Hotel, which is right now in the process of seeking building permits for the conversion of a warehouse to a high tech center. The warehouse would be full of machines that are portals to the Web and Web-based companies would buy time and space on them. That type of center has huge power demands and both Puget Sound Energy and Seattle City Light have had discussions about how they would be able to meet those power demands. Based on the one company currently seeking the permits and rolling projections back once and then rolling them back a second time, the graph lines never cross just on the utility tax on electricity alone. All of the projections assume a certain discipline in not increasing spending in a similar manner. The fifth graph is a combination of the Downtown Redevelopment and the ISP Hotel concept. Rico Yingling asked if the graphs were accumulative. May Miller said the fifth and sixth graphs were. Brent McFall explained that the fifth graph has combined the two development strategies together, and the sixth has the two revenue lines plus the medical cost containment. The graphs show that the City has to be very active in growing the economy and generating revenue, but must also be disciplined on the expenditure side and not raise the level of spending. Actual numbers would vary, but the graphs still remain a good exercise to see ahead if certain different things should come to pass. May Miller said the Capital Facility Plan section had been revised and would be going to the Land Use and Planning Board on November 27, 2000. She handed out the 2001-2006 Preliminary Capital Facilities Plan summary which she said restated the Six Year Plan and showed some of the Public Works corrections and the sources of funds and uses. Some bond pages were attached to show when potential bonds might be issued, and on the last page, how Operations Committee, 11/21/00 Page 7 they would affect current and future debt service and the capacity left as the bond issues were paid. October Finance Report May Miller handed out the October Finance Report. She said the November sales tax figures had been received and were up. Because sales tax had been down for a couple of months, all three months were averaged, and that showed a consistency with the budget. The last page showed Golf Course revenue through October, which was $166,000 over a year ago for the 1S hole, 9 hole, and mini putt course and range. The City share of revenue that is used to pay City operations is the best it's been since 1994, but the Golf Course will still probably end the year in a deficit position because other sides of revenue were down because of the temporary closure of the restaurant. However, the Course has definitely made headway and moved in the right direction. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 2000 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tim Clark, Connie Epperly, Rico Yingling STAFF PRESENT: Don Wickstrom, Cyndi Wilbur, Brett Vinson, Steve Mullen, Gary Gill, Eleanor Borgardts The meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Clark at 5:09 PM. Approval of Minutes of October 16, 2000 Committee Member Rico Yingling moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. 71" Avenue South Street Vacation —Set Hearing Date Public Works Director Don Wickstrom said a valid street vacation petition had been received, and under state law a public hearing has to be held by the full Council within 60 days. The hearing would be set for December 12, 2000, and because of the tight time frame, the item has been placed on the November 7, 2000 Council agenda. Rico Yingling recommended Council adoption of a resolution setting December 121' as a public hearing date for the 71" Avenue South Street vacation. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. No Parking Signs Don Wickstrom said that citizen, Jackie Keyes, owns a house on the northwest comer of 2671h and 104`h that she often rents out as a chapel. When the chapel is rented, parked traffic spills over along 267`h and there's no room for pedestrians to walk. Staff is recommending putting up No Parking signs to keep parked cars off that side of the street so people can walk through the area. Tim Clark asked if there was any likelihood of putting in a sidewalk. Mr. Wickstrom said 2671h Street had recently been overlaid, raising the intersection in order to eliminate flooding. When overlays are done, sidewalks aren't built, but shoulders are widened to provide walking paths along the side of the road. A shoulder was added on the road for the purpose of a walking lane. However, Mr. Wickstrom conjectured, if signs aren't put up, the walking lane will also be used for more parking. Rico Yingling asked where people would park if they couldn't park on that side of the street. Mr. Wickstrom said there is parking available inside the five acre site, and another house off 104`' that is tied to the chapel property could be used for spill-over parking, with people walking around to the chapel. That parking area is not being used because people take the first place available. Mr. Yingling questioned whether the situation could create a worse hazard with people having to find other parking that might be less desirable. Don Wickstrom said there was no hazard in terms of site distance to the comer. The area is a walking route for people to get to the shopping center and a lot of kids go from the apartments over to the school. He added that staff is also looking at whether or not the owner has the appropriate license to operate the chapel facility. Public Works Conunittee, 11/6/00 Page 2 Connie Epperly moved to recommend Council authorization to amend Ordinance 9.38.020 to add "No Parking" signs along the north side of SE 2671h Street from the intersection of 102"d Avenue Southeast to the intersection of 104`h Avenue SE. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 3-0. 272"d Corridor—Accept as Complete Don Wickstrom said the 272°d Corridor project was complete. However, the final contract amount came in at $5,801039.17, a 30% overrun (or$1,364,753.10) from the project's original contract amount. The original estimate was 55,000,000, and the bid came in approximately S1,300,000 under the engineer's estimate, so it is not a budget issue. Part of the problem came about because the project was rushed to construction without a thorough review of the plans and specifications, primarily because of Referendum 49 (which would have flooded the market with projects except for the effects of I-695), and because staff wanted to beat the 4d Rules that are to go into effect on January 8, 2001. The errors in bid in the contract were quantity estimates, primarily in the street section where it was related to pavement, bank run gravel, and crushed rock. Those items ran significantly over bid, but the contractor was also the lowest of all seven bidders in those areas for unit prices. If the quantities had been right, the bid would have been higher to begin with. No material changed in dollar amount. The overrun included $357,000 additional work that Puget Sound Energy and Metro wanted added to the project, about $629,000 related to quantity differences, and S377,000 related primarily just to things that occur in a project that size. Metro is paying the City $196,000 and PSE S161,000 for the work they wanted added during construction. Metro's addition was for the big sewer intersector, and PSE asked that crushed rock backfill material be added to the underground trench. The contractor was originally only supposed to provide the trench. Rico Yingling stated that the $377,698 charges for changes that typically occur on a project that size amounted to 6.5% over budget, which he commented sounded very, very reasonable. Mr. Wickstrom said 10% is usually anticipated when a project goes to bid. In this case, there was the S 1,400,000 besides the 10% because the contractor was so far under the engineer's estimate. The budget was based on the original engineer's estimate plus a contingency fund. Mr. Wickstrom added that the City is selling property, which was part of the program, to help pay for the project. Two houses have already been sold and there is one more house and some tracts to sell. Rico Yingling recommended full Council acceptance of the project as complete. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:26 PM. _ Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Property Acquisition