Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 03/20/2001
City Kent ClotyCouncil Meeting a k s r. Agenda Y C.. Lj e r, KENT < r tl W A S H I N G T O N Yyd F.a Mayor Jim White Councilmembers ` Leona Orr, President Yx Sandy Amodt Connie Epperly s Tom Brotherton Judy Woods ;` Tim Clark Rico Yingling Ki3 uu :3 0,March 2 2001 a x. Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY AGENDA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING KEN T March 20, 2001 WASHINGTON 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 - Boy Scouts 2 . ROLL CALL 3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF B. FROM THE PUBLIC 4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Dr. Priscilla Bell, President, Highline Community College S . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Renewal of Urban Separator Moratorium - Resolution ri 6 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - Approval r- B. Bills - Approval C. Equipment Rental Budget Change - Authorize D. Finance, HR, Payroll Citrix Servers - Authorize E. Document Management System Purchase - Authorize F. Flex Pass Program Agreement, Commute Trip Reduction - Authorize G. Premera Blue Cross/Group Health Contracts for 2001 - Authorize H. Evac-U-Splints Purchase - Authorize I . Service Club Ballfields Donations - Accept and Amend Budget J. Allocation of Additional 2001 CDBG Program Funds - Accept and Appropriate 7 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Urban Separators - Ordinance . B. Cairnes and Pacific Industries Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments S . BIDS None (continued next page) SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED 9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF 10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES 11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION A. Pending Litigation 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) DR. PRISCILLA BELL, PRESIDENT, HIGHLINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE r_ r Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Public Hearincrs 1 . SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF URBAN SEPARATOR MORATORIUM - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On October 3 , 2000 , the City Council enacted a moratorium barring acceptance of all applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application on property located within the City of Kent designated as an urban separator by King County, and in areas being considered by the City of Kent for inclusion in an urban separator. The proposed resolution would renew the moratorium for an additional six months or until the effective date of an ordinance relating to urban separators . Council will consider a proposed ordinance during tonight ' s meeting under Other Business . 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and exhibits 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: A. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to close the public hearing. B. Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds adoption of the findings in the proposed resolution and passage of Resolution No. renewing the moratorium relating to urban separators . DISCUSSION: ' ] ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. SA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to urban separators adopting findings of fact and renewing a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application that increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within the City of Kent that is designated as an urban separator by King County, and in areas being considered by the City of Kent for inclusion in an urban separator. WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 authorizes cities to adopt moratoriums, provided a public hearing is held within sixty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1576 imposing a moratorium barring acceptance of all applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application that increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within the City of Kent that is designated as an urban separator by King County, and in areas being considered by the City of Kent for inclusion in an urban separator until additional review has been completed and any necessary comprehensive plan, zoning map, and/or code revisions have been adopted by the Kent City Council; and WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 provides that a city adopting a moratorium shall adopt findings of fact immediately after the public hearing held within sixty days of adoption of the moratorium; and 1 Urban Separators Moratorium Renewal WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, ^"1 before the Kent City Council and the moratorium was continued until midnight April 2, 2001; and WHEREAS, in order to allow staff sufficient time to thoroughly analyze all of the information staff has gathered during the six (6) month moratorium, to draft proposed code amendments, and to present such code amendments to the full City Council, staff is requesting a renewal to the urban separators moratorium of six (6) months, or until the effective date of any ordinance establishing new regulations governing urban separators, whichever is sooner; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220, a public hearing was held on March 20, 2001, to consider renewing the moratorium for a six (6) month period; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all comments and materials presented; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council finds that the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the community supports renewing the moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application that increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within the City of Kent that is designated as an urban separator by King County, and in areas being considered by the City of Kent for inclusion in an urban separator, until additional review has been completed and any necessary code revisions have been adopted by the Kent City Council; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that an ordinance regarding urban separators will be adopted shortly, possibly as soon as March 20, 2001, however, even if adopted on March 20, 2001, the effective date of any such ordinance would be after the expiration date of the current moratorium, which is April 2, 2001; NOW THEREFORE, -� 2 Urban Separators Moratorium Renewal !'1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Findine of Fact Incorporated. The recitals and findings of fact set forth in this resolution and Resolutions 1576 and 1577 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. SECTION Z Renewal of Moratorium. Based on the Findings of Fact adopted in Section 1, the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for the moratorium enacted in Resolution Nos. 1576 and 1577 to be renewed for an additional six (6) month period. Accordingly, the moratorium shall not expire until midnight on September 30, 2001, unless the moratorium is shortened or extended by action of the City Council or until the effective date of any ordinance establishing new regulations governing urban separators, whichever is sooner, and during said moratorium, no application shall be accepted for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, rezones, or any other similar application that increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within the area designated as urban separator by King County, more fully set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and in areas being considered for inclusion as an urban separator in the City of Kent, more fully set forth in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This moratorium shall not apply to any application for a land use permit or approval which is completed and vested on the effective date of the original moratorium. Additionally, this moratorium shall not apply to any other application for a land use permit or approval which is not for a subdivision, short plat, or other similar application which increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within or proposed for inclusion as an urban separator. Examples of the latter include, but are not limited to, a building permit application on an existing lot and a final plat application on an existing approved preliminary plat. 3 Urban Separators Moratorium Renewal SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, "1 sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION S. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its passage. PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,this day of March, 2001. CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of March, 2001. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 4 Urban Separators Moratorium Renewal I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. r- passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of March, 2001. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:�Civil\Re lurion\UrbanSgp on-MomoriuniRenmal,doc 5 Urban Separators Moratorium Renewal • �.rr.�i ilk_ 3; - �� � .;.- = ---�`�—�...�/� �>• FYI ...11 k r -_° `• ' - . _+. ' - - - •�►� -� __ _�11111`�::1. 'rimer .� xv - -..�.- �� � ' �, 1 r III iL a.�• •�:> Will 4111A Ul Irv 3 a�. �! rr.tlfr �■ 1 �1 p•R 1:7f. a ra � _ �3 �`E-*-Y-�'"�T� I-I'r��". � P I 1 i rn■�- '`y err �Sl��D+'�'�'�-�11_l�u+t'9�-'.•ems . _: t• ', wommeii SIMMONS • �� a'lslcaa',`�,,:®ems - --... ' _ 1111111 I:d.: mun... ._ !N 111�11■t U ttt�lO ■mil uwn�alvau /rQ ■ttttU ®RA —.. � - � �� /.1 � emu■ q•... .. ' l911tI �loll - ;�� : '►:•.%G:Iiu unu: W. - .���• �tttltttltt\�l 1►� _!11'�'� '��ll1lR�7O111�1 ■ IIII'•� u��C_uuulu.ni. : r �t11 1 �- ��\. 112. ■� !! 1�qun-q� �'�s••� I III' Li��1 �f•�. J11? t■! „�,. 0- j LOSE xyr riyy�;�—�c�.� �'l 11\i•u ��-, ■�_II Well WWI t.11�1�1..3•���....k�- _ _ - I _ ' .•:•niiiu�o v Inll_►�'�`\` =o/1/lmass t� till �j HIM ry Vol ��IIIIIIIt11OtC i - lot ISV40.1 It'111-1-1111. t...ad1!`' —_ i :�LLi.�. ��1,► � ■ ��� =;id1�1^ ram_..:��' lU►p � ' ■11 ::�� !�1 I� �i 4• \`1 }} ♦ A/ �zo� pa�r • I1 1,.��NINE�e 44Im .) t_ 'ice .� �® L :., nEi,c�i r " ✓ WIN I s 6 �Ilri j1� ,�sa (p� a ��9R� n I�ECi./\►� t3k ■� a`Yr sAA . ira• RRRRi - wrl ia_p _• c �7f1 •�� A/r� a �i/� �r OI,J �� ■ vL�J��.?r.I�i��lb� r �I>An/Is���<D • ���i Pot /p'ON.��� i•-1.'� •��■��±!RH7 1�.1■�hlrJ��9RI� ��rlii 1� �_=�'I �■, i■�Ci�n i►�L/'��pc�.�ni:�• 9�1�(�s�P47 _r � �j��/ hi rdJa��%v��e�-yA/�AVm711 7�`•��1���� r�.. � ..= 7.. 1� t L1 d�lq•FL}NraA1: illhl�u�7��+�f .v N61�� /RI/i� � qqI LL 1`i I4 0, 1- � III � �_/�.•c�GI�Oy - Ifl�ll\_�ra..i, ���\y� II�I�,-'�� \re••� �� - ���?u�-•�,il'�Sr 1�1� -�I���°~G' '��Y � �1r. /- •�.•.�.'''���71111 IA■Gid\-__r n��. I//IJG -��■� V.'� ....ems _t�i!?9!!R�:6/ i�� �iibl�lllGilLIO fiV- S .■� "Woo Niel Will - Ipy ,fir 1I, on Wit 74.��iiLlFit6RO/ '�i ■.•wis-yew•:.a a 1l.1► - � '�_•r��'�d;i'"".�iii I'� 1�� �`•' Z�116R9RS.RE ■J\ �► ♦t—����IS�_ _� ry7I■ rl`�w .,�. .a��iw4Rq■1R y�� � .— :��..' 1 p��'���r��...�•. Rtrrjt'cmm�e.cr ip19IY ' ��l`<• =� Ave / /■yrrr �- .. ��..,.r m'I4Ji1 f}' / Ir . `` •..- rr arias .n ♦ l7ii.q� u ��•JI•I�A/\..■\RI }\ �'„ 6ff1 �I��swJa,1,�' -'.' d V!® Aws' ANII y\� r tl 5 t�.•r/i Z� aA�/-�171 �I�a-.Is.�i�t, o .. . '1'J��. 'r+ •.urr!w►��3/i r is s�. r� 1 Ar�9u����Ia. Q•r .7. �.r Sri +U'.�� trfRR�, 1�, No Will `,� ' '• QI/F�ar ►�- z� bra �lii•1' .i, I �4r IIGrw� �S' allim I'��\_uli� ESIVd'I �w i../1 1111f��/I 1 NOW, 14 WE Rill: -.r7Y7N�YY3 II:Try lw .�CJI ca.. ..r+.SJ�,ryY.� ,��r9i't1-4ki � '- _ 's -,�r - Il���t.tl.i j .t. l T k��'` aI ntVS7 /s.,► '� /Af•l �w - ■fO■, ` -moo .:�` i 's r T + - ' h'r�_ .`^ ■ ''i �: •� `�Irl- �� .�I f 3F' ---�..� _ fu`LA��'L1yr}"ac-':Ft � b ■■■ui,00 �- Ixu- m oil + ` '�lhq r � 21I ONM , rn T- 4 ✓f Nikki I�ij'�III�I�� ti• y.����j�:��1 e' �� -�?"•, la _C qw , .... `n`■VR%.il ♦u. �B,�r=II ���N``�I��� yr y,Lv .,%9,.��'c� t��. I,k���■`� c•..1..�'r' RA 2*19 ONE also Misr kpll • r • CONSENT CALENDAR 6 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J. Discussion Action 6A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 6, 2001 . 6B. Approval of Bills . Approval of payment of the bills received through February 28 and paid on February 28 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 6, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 2/28/01 509200-509471 $ 592 , 041 . 86 2/28/01 509472-509828 1,498 , 292 . 77 $2 , 090, 334 . 63 Approval of checks issued for payroll for February 16 through February 28 and paid on March 5, 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 3/5/01 Checks 250274-250587 $ 250, 216 . 78 3/5/01 Advices 108173-108869 964 , 221 . 59 $1, 214 , 438 . 37 Council Agenda Item No. 6 A-B Kent, Washington March 6, 2001 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, Deputy Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Martin, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Planning Manager Satterstrom, and Finance Director Miller. Approximately 30 people were at the meeting. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Staff noted that a revised page for Consent Calendar Item 6E has been provided, and that Consent Calendar Item 6C has a technical amendment to the recitals . Consent Calendar Item 6J was added to the agenda, negotiation for land acquisition was added to the executive session, and a report on the recent earthquake was added under Public Communications . Continued Communications Items 11A and 11B were added at the request of audience members . /^ PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Introduction of Appointees. Mayor White introduced Ms . Jeneffer Henson, his appointee to the Diversity Advisory Board. update on Earthquake. McFall reported that the 6 . 8 earthquake on February 28 resulted in only minor damage to some of the older buildings downtown and to storage racks in buildings in the industrial area. He added that there were no deaths or injuries, which is testi- mony to the work done in the region to seismically upgrade and design structures . He noted that there was no damage , of significance to any municipal facilities, but that there was minor damage on a couple of bridges and there was a water main break. He stated that the Emergency Coordination Center was opened and commended City staff for their work. Fire Chief Angelo noted that Council authorized staff to partake in an exercise in Virginia which brought the city together at a much higher level, and thanked the Council for their support . 1 Kent City Council Minutes March 6, 2001 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced that Joan Broom of Parks Planning and Development has been chosen as Employee of the Month for March. He noted that Ms . Broom took on a lot of extra responsibilities last year, including the "Make A Difference Day" Program which involved planting 827 trees and shrubs, planting daffodil bulbs, installing play equipment, and con- structing a trail through wooded areas at the new East Hill Expansion Park. Recreation Services Supervisor Lori Hogan then commended Broom for her outstanding service and the Mayor presented her with the Employee of the Month Plaque. Absolutely Incredible Kid Day. Mayor White read a pro- clamation noting that Camp Fire Boys and Girls helps youth cope with their changing world, and that Camp Fire Boys and Girls is asking every adult in America to write a letter to a child or children on March 15, 2001 . He proclaimed March 15, 2001, as Absolutely Incredible Kid Day in the City of Kent and declared all the children of Kent as absolutely incredible kids . Mary Olson accepted the proclamation and offered stickers, stationery and writing tips to those who are interested. Government Finance Officers Association Award. Mayor White announced that the City of Kent has again received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, and pre- sented it to Cliff Craig, Financial Planning Manager. Finance Director Miller commended Craig and his staff for their work on the budget . CONSENT CALENDAR ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A through J, with the exception of Item D, and including amendments to Items C and E. Woods seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of February 20, 2001 . 2 Kent City Council Minutes March 6 , 2001 WATER (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Water Shortage Emercrencv Regulations . Due to the significant water shortages the City of Kent may experience in the next few months, staff has reviewed and rewritten the water shortage emergency regulations code, Chapter 7 . 13 of the Kent City Code . Chapter 7 . 13 provides a framework for enacting emergency ordinances relating to restrictions on the use of water. This is being submitted to the Council for the first time in order to expedite the effective date of this code in the event the City needs to take action in the near future to restrict the use of water. Public Works Director Wickstrom predicted a serious problem with the water supply, and explained the situation. He said conservation will help and that the proposed ordinance may not have to be used. Upon Amodt ' s question, Lubovich explained the guidelines in the ordinance and clarified that the required emergency ordinance would be modeled on these guidelines and that the guidelines could be modified at the time . CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No . 3550 repealing Chapter 7 . 13 of the Kent City Code in its entirety and enacting a new Chapter 7 . 13 entitled "Water Shortage Emergency Regulations" . Orr seconded. Clark noted that the shortfall projected is four million gallons a day, and that water is needed for fire fighting. Orr pointed out that there was a water shortage in the area in 1992 and that the City of Kent experienced a 30% decrease even though it did not have a shortage . She and Mayor White urged everyone to conserve water. Clark' s motion then carried. STREET IMPROVEMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Washington Avenue/Meeker St. Street Improvements Condemnation. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3548 providing for the condemnation of land for the Washington Avenue HOV Improvements and Meeker Street Widening project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . 3 Kent City Council Minutes March 6, 2001 STREET IMPROVEMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) 277th Corridor Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the 277th Corridor Inter-agency Agreement with Auburn, to carry out all acts consistent with this agreement, including applying for and accepting grant funds, and ratifying all acts taken consistent with this motion; also, authorization to add a Public Works Department full time accounting position to be funded out of Auburn' s 277th Corridor project up to two years, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . The intent is to start this position as part time but because of numerous funding agencies involved and the different criteria associated with each and coupled with the dollar magnitude, the flexibility to increase the position to full time is needed. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H) Sale of Surplus Eauipment. AUTHORIZATION to declare certain vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and to sell them at the next public auction, as recommended by the Public Works Committee . CONDEMNATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F) Sound Transit Improvements Condemnation. ADOPTION of Ordinance No . 3546 providing for the condemnation of land for the street improvements associated with Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. ALLEY VACATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I) Alley Vacation Between 1st and 2nd Avenues and Smith and Temperance Streets . ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3549 vacating a portion of unused alleyway generally between Temperance and West Smith Streets, lying between 1st and 2nd Avenue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C) 2000 Annual Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3544 relating to 4 Kent City Council Minutes March 6, 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-2000-2 (B) , CPA-2000-2 (C) , CPA-2000-2 (F) , and CPA-2000-2 (G) ; and adoption of Ordinance No . 3545 relating to zoning map changes CPZ-2000-2 and CPA-2000-3 . These ordinances (1) amend the comprehensive plan' s land use map designations and zoning map designations of parcels of property more specifically identified in the ordinances; and (2) amend the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan (CPA-2000-2 (G) ) . Item CPA-2000-2 (A) was tabled at the Council ' s February 20 , 2000 , meeting until the agricultural lands policy update is complete . BORDEN SITE (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11A) (ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF MARTIN PLYS) Borden Site. Martin Plys, 3004 S . 256th, said that the Borden Chemical Facility Phase II Report stated that the total clean-up cost estimate is $337, 800, and that Mr. McFall stated that the city expects to spend about $70 , 000 to clean up hazardous groundwater and soil contamination. He said that a newspaper article states that the city plans to invest in a $1, 000, 000 insurance policy to cover clean up costs over a ten year period. He said he believes city officials are intentionally attempting to conceal and cover up costs from citizens, and asked for the total amount the city spent on the purchase of the Borden property and any additional related costs . McFall responded that the Phase II study does identify approximately $330 , 000 of costs associated with elements of the property that will need to be addressed prior to construction, and that approximately $70 , 000 of that cost is associated with actual hazardous materials clean up. He explained that that includes $50 , 000 for the pump and treat of a small methanol spill over a ten year period and about $20 , 000 for the removal and disposal of soils that indicate an excessive level of nitrates . He noted that the cost of compaction problems will be borne by the developer. McFall said the city did purchase a pollution liability insurance policy with a one-time premium of $58 , 000 , that the Borden Company is an 5 Kent City Council Minutes March 6, 2001 BORDEN SITE additional insured on the policy, and that it provides $1, 000 , 000 of liability coverage to the city and to the Borden Company for any undiscovered hazardous materials that might exist on the site for a ten year period. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D) (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER AMODT) School Impact Fee Schedule. The proposed ordinance would amend the School Impact Fee ordinance for the Federal Way School District based on the Capital Facilities Plan of the school district which is being adopted as an element of the City of Kent ' s Comprehensive Plan concurrently with this ordinance. The school impact fees for the Federal Way School District increased from $2 , 384 to $2, 710 for single- family residences and $786 to $830 for multifamily residences . There are no changes to the Kent School District school impact fees. Amodt noted that she voted no on the school impact fees last year and that she will stay consistent with that this year. She read from a letter from the Building Industry Association of Washington favoring the fees, and stated that a $1, 000 increase in the price of a home eliminates 400 families from the housing market . CLARK MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3546 relating to impact fees . Orr seconded. Clark said the school impact fees are an on-going part of the growth manage- ment plan, and that the real estate community and the school district do not request the full fees, as they are aware of the impact . on housing . Orr pointed out that because of the impact fees collected, some property taxes can be held at a lower rate . Yingling emphasized that this is a request from the Federal Way School District , not from the City of Kent ; Amodt noted that it affects Kent home owners . Clark' s motion then carried with Amodt and Epperly opposed. Mayor White noted for Mr. Rubio that concerns about school taxes should be taken to the school board. 6 Kent City Council Minutes March 6 , 2001 EMPLOYEE SERVICES (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 11B) Employees. Joe Rubio, 3831 S . 248th, said the City of Kent is nearing 1000 employees and that the City of Federal Way has less than 290 employees . He suggested looking at privatizing projects, and said costs would drop dramatically. Mayor White pointed out that Federal Way does not provide utilities or fire service, and that their taxes to their citizens exceed those of the City of Kent . He also clarified that the City of Kent has 782 employees and is not headed toward 1000 employees . He emphasized that the City is now operating with 10 employees per thousand and that approximately eight years ago it was 14 per thousand. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J) (ADDED ITEM) Diversity Advisory Board Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor ' s appointment of Jennefer Henson to serve as a member of the Kent Diversity Advisory Board. Ms . Henson r is a Kent resident and was formerly employed at Kent Municipal Court . She currently serves as Court Administrator at Des Moines Municipal Court . She has worked in the courts for more than eleven years and has had a wide variety of experiences with the Judicial System. While working at the City of Kent, she served as a member of Diversity Training Task Force and has recently been appointed to the Gender and Justice Committee for the State of Washington. Ms . Henson will replace Bohdan Basisty, who resigned, and her term will continue until 9/30/02 . FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through February 15 and paid on February 15 after auditing by the Operations Committee on March 6, 2001 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 2/15/01 508537-506765 $1, 015, 222 . 02 2/15/01 508766-509199 1 , 625 , 551 . 85 $2 , 640, 773 . 87 7 Kent City Council Minutes March 6, 2001 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for Aavroll for February 1 through February 15 and paid on February 20 , 2001 : Date Check Numbers Amount 2/20/01 Checks 249955-250273 $ 262 , 440 . 96 2/20/01 Advices 107518-108172 1 , 001 , 705 . 75 $1, 264 , 146 . 71 REPORTS Council President. Orr reminded Councilmembers of the Suburban Cities dinner and commended the staff and citizens for their efforts at the time of the earthquake. Public Safety Committee. Epperly noted that the next meeting will be held at 5 : 00 p.m. on March 13 . Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the next meeting will be held on March 19 at 5 : 00 p.m. Administrative Reports. McFall reminded Council of an executive session regarding pending and potential litigation, as well as negotiation on land acquisition. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7 : 50 p.m. , the meeting recessed into Executive Session. The meeting reconvened at 8 : 12 p.m. Property Acquisition. WOODS MOVED to accept the offer of $49, 000 from Skyline Properties and authorize the mayor to sign the closing documents on the sale of the Austin Property, and amend the Canterbury Park Budget with the proceeds resulting from this sale. Epperly seconded and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT At 8 : 13 p.m. , ORR MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Woods seconded and the motion carried. i� Brenda Jacob r, CMC City Cler 8 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUDGET CHANGE - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations Committee at their March 6 meeting, authorization to replace five police vehicles from the Equipment Rental Fund. There are sufficient reserves of $133 , 187 to cover the five vehicles . Two of these requested vehicles will replace two which were totaled in accidents; one vehicle is an addition and will become a standby car to ensure uninterrupted police service, and two vehicles are normal replacements of high mileage vehicles. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director Miller and memo from Alice Conrad, Fleet Superintendent 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. 6C • KENT /� WASH I N GTON DATE: February 28, 2001 FINANCE May Miller TO: Mayor White and City Councilmembers Director \ Phone:253-856-5260 FROM: May Miller 'Ma � Fax:253-856-6255 220 Fourth Ave. S. SUBJECT: Equipment Rental Budget Change Kent,WA 98032-5895 Authorization is requested to approve replacement of five Police vehicles from the Equipment Rental Fund. The vehicles need to be approved to be included in the state bid process. There are sufficient reserves of$133,187 to cover five vehicles. Two vehicles were considered to be totaled in accidents and will be funded partially from Equipment Rental Reserves of$24,497 with the balance of$32,536 to be paid from the Equipment Rental Insurance Account. One vehicle is to provide a standby car for uninterrupted Police service in case of accidents or downtime. The two other replacements have high miles or have sufficient replacement reserves to be included. The $76,154 for the three vehicles will be funded from Equipment Rental reserves and Fund Balance. I recommend approval of the budget change to replace the five Police vehicles. Attachment: Memo from Alice Conrad,Fleet Superintendent COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize a budget change of$133,l87 to replace five Police vehicles with funds from the Equipment Rental Fund Balance for Reserve and Insurance Reserve. PUBLIC WORKS Don E. Wickstrom, Director .� OPERATIONS DIVISION Larry R. Blanchard, Manager Phone: 253-856-5656 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6600 WA5H,MGTCH Mailing Address: 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent,WA 98032-5895 Location Address: 5821 South 240th Date: February 16, 2001 To: May Miller, Finance Director From: Alice I. Conrad, Fleet Superintendent Through: Larry Blanchard, Operations Manager Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Mike Martin, Deputy City Administrator Subject: Fleet Vehicle Replacements—Request for Council Approval There are 5 vehicles currently on order which will require review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to the Fleet Services 2001 Budget as expected expenditures in 6400 OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAY 510 5543 48E. These purchases were not anticipated during the development of the 2001 budget document. The following vehicle replacements will raise the total line item from S544.725 to S677,912. I hope the following brief explanation for each purchase will be helpful: 1. Vehicle r3188, 1999 Ford Crown Victoria, Police Interceptor. used as a police patrol unit, was totaled in an accident on 10/28/99. This vehicle was scheduled for replacement in the 2002-vear budget. Accumulated replacement/reserve (including anticipated salvage recovery) as of 4/1/01 is $14,633. The new replacement cost is $28,246 (including vehicle setup). The difference of$13,613 shall be taken from the fleet services insurance fund. (New Vehicle #3223) 2. Vehicle 43156, 1997 Ford Crown Victoria, Police Interceptor, used as a police patrol unit, was totaled in an accident on 7/19/99. This vehicle was scheduled for replacement in the 2000-year budget. Accumulated replacement/Reserve (including anticipated salvage recovery) as of 4/1/01 is $9,864. The new replacement cost is $28,787 (including vehicle setup). The difference of$18,998 shall be taken from the fleet services insurance fund. (New Vehicle #3225) 3. Vehicle 43224 is an addition to the fleet to insure a continued, uninterrupted police service after serious police vehicle accidents. There is a single annual opportunity to purchase the police interceptor. Our accident history has shown that two standby vehicles are necessary. The standby unit is a fully set up vehicle ready for operation -� �- Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: FINANCE, HR PAYROLL CITRIX SERVERS - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign a purchase order payable to Technology Express in the amount of $64, 997 . 10 for 5 HP NetServer computers and a purchase order payable to En Point Technologies in the amount of $24 , 033 . 18 for Citrix Metaframe software . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Joe Lorenz to Operations Committee and Call for quotes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $64 , 997 . 10 and $24 , 033 . 18 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Tech Plan 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6D Date: February 21, 2001 To: Council Operations Committee From: Joseph Lorenz, Technical Services Manaw Cc: Marty Mulholland Re: Finance, HR, Payroll Thin Client Software and Servers Background: The Finance, HR, Payroll Project budget approved by the City Council on August 15, 2000 included money to acquire hardware and software to support the deployment and maintenance of the JD Edwards (JDE) end user client. The funds set aside will be the foundation of a thin client server farm assembled specifically to distribute the JDE end user client. Thin client technology stores and executes an application from a central server, only sending screen refreshes to the client PC. The thin client technology will allow the JDE client software to be stored, run and updated from a centralized location. Having the application centrally managed saves valuable staff time and network resources by minimizing the number of desktop computers requiring manual or over the network updates. We are able to update the software in a few locations allowing all thin client users instant access to the most current information version of the JDE client. !� Process: On January 31, 2001 the Technical Services department released two Requests for Quotes (RFQ). One RFQ was issued for 5 HP NetServer Computers and one for Citrix Metaframe Software. The City received 7 responses to the RFQ for the HP NetServer Computers and 7 firms responded to the City's RFQ for Citrix MetaFrame software.. Purchase Recommendation: After reviewing the quotes, the Information Technology Department recommends awarding the RFQ for 5 HP NetServer Computers to the lowest respondent, Technology Express, in the amount of$64,997.10 or $12,999.42 per server. It is the recommendation of the Information Technology Department to award the RFQ for Citrix MetaFrame software to the lowest bidder, En Point Technologies, in the amount of$24,033.18. Attachments: Letter from Marty Mulholland to Council Operations dated July 22, 2000 Request for Quotes for 5 HP NetServer LP1000r's Request for Quotes for Citrix Metaframe Software City of Kent Call for Quotes For Five (5) HP NetServer Computers, And related Product Warranty Issued: February 1, 2001 Date Due: February 12, 2001 Time Due: 3:OOPM, Pacific Time Address Responses to: City Clerk Quote for HP NetServer Computers 220 4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 • KENT WASHINGTON when an accident vehicle is removed from service. There is no accumulated replacement/reserve for this vehicle. The new replacement cost is S23,787. The vehicle will be added to the fleet and rates will be developed for the 2002 fleet. 4. Vehicle 43141 is a 1994 Ford Econo Club Wagon, currently assigned to the police patrol/traffic division for commercial vehicle inspection and traffic enforcement. This unit currently has almost 65,000 miles and has had an excessive number of work orders in the past 6 months. Since the police department does need a different type of vehicle for their purposes and the vehicle is showing an excessive amount of costly downtime 1 am supporting the recommendation for early replacement in this case. Accumulated replacement/reserve (including anticipated salvage recovery) as of4/l/01 is S18,265. The new replacement cost is $27,246 (including vehicle setup). 5. Vehicle '"3101 is a 1995 Ford Crown Victoria currently assigned to Police Administration. To establish a five-year replacement cycle for this vehicle, replacement should occur this year. Funds are available to replace this vehicle within the recommended time frame. Accumulated replacement/reserve (including anticipated salvage recovery) as of 4/1/01 is S32,614. The new replacement cost is S25,121. Eq# Description Budget Reserves Eq Cost Difference 3188 2001 Cr Victoria Patrol 0 14,633 28,246 -13,613 Vehicle totaled 3156 2001 Cr Victoria Patrol 0 9,864 28.787 -18,923 Vehicle totaled 3224 2001 Cr Victoria Patrol 0 0 23,787 -23,787 Provide standby car 3141 2001 Cr Victoria Traffic 0 18,265 27,246 -8.981 High miles and maintenance costs" 3101 2001 Cr Victoria Police Adm. 0 32,614 25,121 7,493 Police Administrative Vehicle " Total 0 75.376 133,187 -57.811 The first two vehicles will be paid from the fleet services insurance fund; "the last three vehicles will be paid from the Equipment Rental Fund Balance. i Please feel free to call me at 5680 if you have questions. Thank you. Ref: PfleetlpohceI2001 Budget adj jar accident cars.doc QUOTE SPtG1HL;AI IUNb QUOTE FOR HP NETSERVER LP1000r The City of Kent, a Washington municipality, intends to purchase 5 identical HP NetServer computers from a Hewlett-Packard authorized reseller. Supplier must be a Hewlett-Packard authorized warranty repair center with a repair facility in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area. The City will purchase five (5) identical machines; i.e., all five (5) units will have an identical configuration. All units and components must be factory new, not refurbished or returned, or restocked. The City will take delivery of the five (5) machines by March 16, 2001 . Schedule of Events Request of Quotes issued: January 31 , 2001 Request for Quotes due: February 12, 2001 at 3:OOPM Pacific Time Notification to Apparently Successful Supplier: February 14, 2001 Approval by Kent City Council: March 6, 2001 Formal Acceptance of Quote: March 7, 2001 Delivery of equipment: March 16, 2001 Please provide a written quote for the following: Five (5) HP NetServer LP1000r rack mount computers to the following minimum specifications: All components must be original equipment manufacturer or HP OEM components. The components must be new in original manufacturer packaging; refurbished, restocked, or returned equipment will not be acceptable. Minimum Configuration for the five (5) NetServer Computers: LP1000r Server ProductNumber Qnt ProductQescription P2465A#ABA 5 LP1000r PII1/1GHz Mod 1 Base Model P2453A 5 Pentium III Coppermine 1 GHz 256KB on die Cache LP1000r CPU Second CPU for above 08268A 110 HP 1GB 133MHz DIMM P2473A 10 18.2GB 10K Ultra3 Wide SCSI-3 Hot Swap HDD H5514A 15 1 HP Hardware SupportPack (LC, LPr series 3 Year, 247) QUOTE SPECIFICATIONS QUOTE FOR HP NETSERVER LP1000r The City reserves the absolute right to accept or reject any equixelent product offered for any reason, with or without cause, by a supplier. Quotes for each product shall included delivery to the City. Suppliers shall be responsible for all goods until delivered to and accepted by the City. Quotes must include Washington State Sales Tax, when applicable, calculated at the current rate. Please submit quotes in the following format. Additional materials may be attached. Company Name: ie G�-%nod1 T= r-P Company Address: s a C-4&1 Contact Name and Phone Number. C;..d:4 Guk MAce� � � 96-R'�tZ Z r x -117 pgo\` Location of HP Warranty Repair Facility: Do you have an 800 number for product G or support questions?: $7 7$ i P2465A #ABA 5 LP1000r PIIIl1GHz Mod 1 Baser Model o6v 1 co. P2453A 5 Pentium III Coppermine 1GHz 256KB on die Cache LP1000r CPU. (Second CPU for above) i r '�'��• 7 �� 08268A 110 HP 1G8 133MHz OIMM a v C° �l P2473A 110 18.2GB 10K Ultra3 Wide SCSF3 Hot Swap HOD S c3 H5514A 5 HP Hardware SupportPack (LC. LPr series 3 s$o 9 Year, 24x7) r Sub Total SgSo, Tax Shipping Costs Total 9 r THERE ARE FOUR REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: 1. Please attach a price guarantee letter guaranteeing the above price through (May 31, 2001). 2. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP reseller. 3. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized HP warranty service center. 4. Please attach a letter describing the procedure that the City would take: a) In the event of a hardware problem in the first year of ownership. b) In the event of a hardware problem in the to and V years of ownership. Please attach any additional information with regard to the product or delivery of the product here: Quotes are due in writing to the City of Kent Clerks office no later then Monday, February 12, 2001, 3:00PM Pacific Time, as noted by the clock in the Clerk's Office. Electronic submission of a response is not an acceptable response format and will be rejected. City of Kent Clerks Office - 2n0 Floor. 220 4'n Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Quote for HP NetServer Computers ri 1'!I V V L VV 1 11711 North Creek Parkway South � p Q� � suite 8 Bothell, (425 80 -8011 232 1 C (425) 806-8888 Fax 425) 806-8232 February 12,2001 City of Kent Purchasing Dept., '?0 4 h Ave So.,2nd Floor Kent, WA 98032 RE: Quote for Netserver Computers 2/12/01 Technology Express is an authorized HP service provider. If Technology Express is awarded this bid, we will assign a technician to The City of Kent account for help during normal business hours. This person can be contacted in the event of a hardware problem with the Netservers. The technician will diagnose the hardware problem and if needed will order replacement parts for next day delivery. When parts arrive, our technician will come on site to the City of Kent and repair the Netserver. The warranty period for these systems is three years on-site. The service provided is the same for all three years. If there is a problem and it does not occur during.normal business hours, you do have the option to contact HP directly for warranty help. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, � Cindy annon Account Manager TECHNOLOGY11711 North Credo Parkway south Suite 108 Bothell, 9soi — � (425)806-8888ax F (42� 80 806-828282 February 12,2001 City of Kent Purchasing Dept. 220 4'"Ave So.,2ad Floor Kent, WA 98032 RE: Quote for Netserver Computers 2/12/01 Technology Express will guarantee the pricing for the attached bid for the Netserver LP1000R servers and components until May 31,2001. Since�rely/, /' Cindy Cannon Account Manager 1iXHiVVLVU T 11711 North Creek Parkway South Suite� Bothell, 98011(425)806-8888 Fax(425)80806-8282 February 12,2001 City of Kent Purchasing Dept. 220 4"Ave So.,2nd Floor Kent, WA 98032 RE: Quote for Netserver Computers 2112/01 If awarded this bid, Technolgy Express will have the Netservers assembled (per specification) by Hewlett Packard. This provides more quality control and also allows us to provide better pricing. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, (2 Cindy Can Account Manager City of Kent Call for Quotes For CITRIX 1vIETAFRAIVIE 1.8, with Subscriptions Issued: February 1, 2001 Date Due: February 12, 2001 Time Due: 3:0012M, Pacific Time Address Responses to: City Clerk Quote for CITRIX METAFRAME 220 4`" Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 I I KENT ' V•iMlwy' �N QUOTE SPECIFICATIONS QUOTE FOR CITRIX METAFRAME The City of Kent, a Washington municipality, intends to purchase five (5) copies of CITRIX METAFRAME version 1.8 with SUBSCRIPTION and five (5) copies of CITRIX LOAD BALANCING SERVICES for Windows 2000 from a CITRIX authorized reseller. All packages must be factory new, not returned, nor restocked. The City will take delivery of the five (5) software packages by March 16, 2001. Schedule of Events Request of Quotes issued: January 31, 2001 Request for Quotes due: February 12, 2001 at 3:OOPM Pacific Time Notification to Apparently Successful Supplier: February 14, 2001 Approval by Kent City Council: March 6, 2001 Formal Acceptance of Quote: March 7, 2001 Delivery of software: March 16, 2001 Please provide a written quote for the following: Five(5) copies of CITRDC METAFRAME version L&with SUBSCRIPTION for Windows 2000. Rve(5) copiesotCEMIX LOAD BAtANCINGSERVICESfbrMETAFRAME version I.R fbrWCntbws 20M. CrMIX PnoductNumbers EACMFR18K15S 5 CITRIX METAFRAME version 1.8 with SUBSCRIPTION for Windows 2000 WFL317000 5 CITRIX LOAD BALANCING SERVICES for CITRIX METAFRAME version 1.8 All components must be original equipment manufacturer or OEM components. The components must be new in original manufacturer packaging; restocked, or returned merchandise will not be acceptable. The City reserves the absolute right to accept or reject any equivalent product offered for any reason, with or without cause, by a supplier. Quotes for each product shall included delivery to the City. Suppliers shall be responsible for all goods until delivered to and accepted by the City. Quotes must include Washington State Sales Tax, when applicable, calculated at the current rate. QUOTE SPECIFICATIONS QUOTE FOR CITRIX METAFRAME Please submit quotes in the following format. Additional materials may be attached. Company Name: il] 00 t,n�p �et o ONO[oq I c S Company Address: 10 h i N.E �_�T h C ;R L I e. 3 106- Contact Name and Phone Number. ,a FI, l.o ; U .i;—d �r — 5-1 _ 3 Do you have an 800 number for product or supoort auestions?T r' - goo— EACMFR18K15S 5 CITRIX METAFRAME version 1.8 with SUBSCRIPTION for Windows 2000 I�,59d•DU j0- WFLB17000 5 CITRIX LOAD BALANCING SERVICES for CITRIX METAFRAME version 1.8 gf9 ,00 `i uu ,410• Sub Total 0 Li Tax Shipping Costs Total THERE ARE TWO REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS: 1. Please attach a price guarantee letter guaranteeing the above price through (May 31, 2001). 2. Please attach a letter verifying status as an authorized CITRIX reseller. Please attach any additional information with regard to the product or delivery of the product here: Quotes are due in writing to the City of Kent Clerks office no later then Monday, February 12. 2001, 3:OOPM Pacific Time, as noted by the clock in the Clerk's Office. Electronic submission of a response is not an acceptable response format and will be rejected. City of Kent Clerks Office—2n° Floor. 220 4`1'Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: Quote for CITRIX METAFRAME -..-• �o aac. r,da CITRIX Febcaary 27,:001 r-m=kff Cook Ra:Fa Pouts Tecbeolopes To.r1 itmy c00oan: CSttix btavby ooafirms t}at En Pomte TahnoloSwo is an 4udwr=d $iivar 5olaaoos Provider in good sismdlm All caUt icadoos are up to date.Thair aathasi=don number is 23613100. 3ittt�aly t..Dt L 3eft CraIICe1 Raauifinent Maa W TeL• 500-644-93SB.=t 28367 Goa s mm.:oc 6400 V@ 6d%WIF Fort Lsudrd.le Ff 33309 ��ciuGr�xn ?54 7-57 8421 a2 -ter —� EN POINTE' :0627 N. E. 38m Circle —�-�--�- 9udtling ^_2 Kirkland Washington 98033 206.889.5130 2/12/01 [Faxl 206.889.5140 [Intemet]general@enpointe.com Price Guarantee Letter Pricing for the part numbers listed on the quotes (HP net server and Citrix Metaframe) attached will remain fixed through May 31 2001. Doug Fletcher En Pointe Technologies 425-889-5133 Office 253-225-1425 Cell /411 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PURCHASE - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with FYI Image for the purchase of document imaging software and implementation services subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Stan Waldrop and Jim McKenney to Operations Committee 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $731 , 702 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Tech Plan 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6E KENT WAS...*TON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATE: February 16, 2001 TO: Council Operations Committee //��,,� FROM: Stan Waldrop, I.T. Systems Division Managerqu) Jim McKenney, I.T. Senior Systems Analys9�- RE: Document Management System/Purchase Recommendation Background: The City has been utilizing a document imaging application called Laserfiche since 1992. Laserfiche was used successfully in some targeted areas, but a combination of difficult product upgrades, uncertain support, and limited functionality reduced the user's confidence in the �^ system. Consequently, replacing the document imaging system was included as part of the 1998 Technology Plan. Preparation Work: The system selection process began as a result of the City's Space and Records Mangement studies. The City's space study, conducted by Merrit & Pardini, indicated that the City was dedicating substantial floor area to the storage of paper files, and it seemed prudent to examine those files and determine whether other storage approaches should be considered. As part of examining the paper file storage, the City recognized the need to approach these files from a formal "Records Management" perspective. Therefore, Information Technology partnered with the City Clerk in a citywide records inventory to identify all paper and electronic records. Not only were the records identified, but record ownership, duplication, access frequency, and storage space needs were examined for each department. One outcome of the records inventory was the development of a citywide records retention schedule, which was approved by the State Archivist in October 2000. A secondary outcome was identification of City records suitable for storage and retrieval in a document management system. 17, Selection Process: In August 2000,we issued a Document Management System RFP to replace the existing �+ application. The key selection requirements included: • System to be used by all departments, but sufficiently customizable to meet individual department needs and processes • Easy document retrieval using a web browser • Sufficient security so that very private documents such as public safety documents and/or employee files could be appropriately secured • Ability to integrate with the JD Edwards Financial system and other City business systems. • Vendor with proven track record of document imaging implementation successes. • Document imaging product with proven track record backed by a stable company. The City received five RFP responses. The RFP responses were analyzed with help from Cary Information Consulting, the consulting firm that assisted with the records inventory, and representatives from several departments using the current document imaging application. After reviewing the responses, two finalists were selected to participate in a product demonstration and proposal review. Approximately 15 employees participated in the product demonstrations and provided feedback on each vendor and their products. As a result of the product demonstrations and extensive reference checks performed on each vendor, FYI Image was identified as the vendor most capable of addressing the City's document imaging needs. The document imaging application proposed by FYI Image is the Acorde product produced by Optika, Inc. FYI Image is an authorized Optika reseller as well as an accomplished document imaging implementation vendor used by several Washington State agencies including the Liquor Control Board and the State Patrol. The original proposal costs were approximately S1 2 Million dollars (including hardware). After FYI Image was identified as the vendor of choice, further reference checks were conducted and site visits including one to the Washington State Liquor Control Board. FYI Image's proposal was also scrutinized in an attempt to reduce costs where appropriate, without risking the project's success. FYI Image was very helpful throughout this final evaluation by identifying significant cost reductions and responding immediately to all requests made of them. Participating Departments: The participating departments and the records that will be initially managed in this system include: • City Clerk (Ordinances, Resolutions, Council Agendas, Contracts) • Police (Records & Corrections) • Community Development (Permit communication documents, Public Works business f les) • Public Works (Design, Construction & Prop Mgmt—Permit Process) 11 1 • Fire & Life Safety (Fire Prevention —Permit Process). • Finance (JD Edwards) • Employee Services (JD Edwards) Upon project completion, it is anticipated that other City systems and processes could participate and effectively utilize this document management solution. Expected Outcomes: The anticipated project outcomes include: • Central, accessible, and secure storage location for the files listed above. • Ability to electronically manage the above files per the City's official records retention schedules. • Compliance with Washington State electronic records storage requirements. • Reduction in file duplication. • Electronic link between the associated business systems and paper records produced outside the business system. • Potential to provide appropriate public records access through the Internet. Project Timelines: The estimated timelines for the project are as follows: 1. Phase 1 —2❑d Quarter 2001 —System Design 2. Phase 2—3`d Quarter 2001 —Conversion from old Imaging System (primarily Police & City Clerk) 3. Phase 3 —41h Quarter 2001 —Permit System Integration 4. Phase 4— 1" Quarter 2002—JD Edwards System Integration Budget Impact and Summary: Project Component Bud et O tika Software: Acorde Site License) $192,678 SQL Server Database Software/Client Access License CALs S9,345 Implementation Assistance $235,750 Training $3 8,800 Conversion Assistance (includes conversion of over 1 million S45,140 images) Hardware estimated $103,000 i^ Maintenance Costs $40,470 Contingency 10% $66,518 Project Budget $731,702 .Pro'ect.Phases !,P ,:, .,.. Bud et--. Phase 1 - 2'0 Quarter 2001 $365,554 Phase 2 - 3rd Quarter 2001 $123,680 Phase 3 - 4Quarter 2001 $110,430 Phase 4 - 15` Quarter 2002 $132,037 Project Budget $731,702 The budget source will be the Technology Plan, with the Phase 4 costs coming from the 2002 Technology Plan Automation Projects allocation. Hardware Acquisition: The system hardware requests for quotes were released on February 21". The successful document imaging hardware vendor or vendors should be identified by the time the Operations Committee meets to review this proposal. Attachments: ♦ Exhibit A EDMS Project Budget ♦ Exhibit B Vendor's Price Proposal �^- ♦ Exhibit C Compensation ♦ Exhibit D Statement of Work & Deliverables Motion: Move to authorize the Mayor to sign contracts with FYI Image for the purchase of Document Imaging software and implementation services, and with for system hardware, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0000000000 OOMMOO N011. NNOtflOOOOO In w O CC V; U) O W N CO CO CO Uf P 1 A 0 0 0 Ce1 1� aO) NO ~ nM ti � ONf NO NNNeN- N � Im en r i0 r N r O LL ~ N 6H 69 ER 69 69 64 603, 64 M 6A V►M M fA 64 601, 61►6A V► ` O O O O CO CO Cn O O O O 0 0 In f9 CO O O In 1- N N O O o O O O 1- r cn ' ' ' o CD O 1- CD N ' O o Cn ' 0 Cn CO .0G Ili r cn CT (D CO CA r O CC) N V' a) 0 0 N M 1- A qr Lj- N t CL 69 69 69 64 69 69 64 69). 44D. 69 64 69 69 64 69 603169 69 V► m r do 00o NCO LO N r •y i f� r Q' V' N M r M U O U O O O V' O O O O O CO O M T In CD y r N co CL N i . . . lLo cq N v V' CO N M N CD V N O O O N N M j N L U CL 0 69 PA 69646964 6969N 6969 fA 64 69 69 69 69 N) N CO O Co 1-- O O CO Of N r M N N CO d O U = J a o 0 ova o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q U `n0 O (D � OooOLr) Ul) W) N r to ' ' ' ' CD v e ' N O 0 O 1'- ' ' r'- n r m N V• N N V r N N Ch r N Cl' Q07 O N CL r •— � � 69 64 69 iA 64 64 64 ff) 64 69 69 69 69 64 69 fR 69 69 w cno OCOCDvv m m y r M , r r r N r o 1• N O U = J O O O Cn cn O O IT v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 Cn O co CO O N. Cn N Cn CO O O Cn Cn O Cn CC9 O r r Cn M of Cn ' V N f` N O CO 1'- r-- 0 1` ti OA N ITCn f� 1� v v � O o N f` .M- O M N L U r a CL 69 69 69 69 69 64 69. 69 w 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 Q n O M M r N O O O O N O O V' r M CD Cn O CD r Co CD n tn N � r N 0 O C = O U J X C m _ U C7 U U 7 C O C) p lL C .+ O M CO y O G7 C Cq p U O d M L •�vQ� p (� V y.`. p a cC y U ca m o cct0 a a.0 U x Cj ILm J O CA p p F- CD O n� O c � c m o (1) a y p U A ° U c cc c c d N C o U to m `m E ' m c ` C C] CD U y = y m O � U p- `mYY ,cY° a`piY 3 0 3 Q) c ; Q7 °a� � d w c 3 - - - a q > r w m m a u r c r a m a. ~ OOODU m0 Um US co � v� UHv� f= a 111 . • ? m 0 E 000 O C O O CD O O 0 0 0 CA M co 000 O 00 O CD I- < (MOOD 1�- M N CD O CO 0 0 00 U) UO V- 6 6 6 4 O O Waft N 7 N a0 1 c9 1lf Q O h O CD w _ R^f A M M IRT V f` MN V N 0 O N O M ? CN LL ~ N ` cn 69 w w w w w EH w w 64 w w 69 w w m 04 CO N O N O CO N L a 69 w E!a fR w w w 60 w w w w Va w U O O O O Q) M U) 4 C) CA Ei U') 1.- O w Go j O O N I� M N aW M j N L N O O M V U O. 0 e; bra w w w 64 w fA bra w w w w w D IV U) N i i , , , . UO7 LO i i i i 0 d �I O Y) � M .tea Q N L N a a^ ' 6e w 6Ra bs w w w bra w 691, 6R91 bfa 69 w L-: c C o c 0 0 0 o e O O o 0 0 0 0 7 e— N CD O co O O Go ' , ' ' ' ' ' N TCDN O O) N 'C' N � 00 O to N a Qw 69 6ia w bra ea w 64 6% 69 bra w w w y t71 C a N 0 y C 10 W c mCL h E 4 (no cj en m N a) LLQ C 7 m Y C O O! 3 0 m U > V1 m i y U c y r.+ 4 Q M y m C N C9 O id A d p_ c !O u V Q () CO m C9 i �. U y r N N d :: .+ E O d, cn U U c cm a o O a = c o E a a) d H U a U) A H 0 U � Im- c ow o ¢ � c a c cmi c vOi u N C. ca c o `m 1O Q i 'm Cx9 C A O c x CcaU. U y o c1 m E m co �' `m ►- c c°'i w CC — U CQY_ _ YY Qi > }y',�o, m 61 d J G m a CO >. 4 G O C O "" c C 3 O Z 10 Q U O U L 00 H O U ao o `o y m 6 ujLL 0 U U � � � � ( � 01 C0 O dl'f OHO L0000 LO LSO o0 td00000t0 N N1� may' rWa00Itf LON LO0 P� �r00 �TOt� r O M N ti M C o m o CO O M o ' r O 0 M r- M r O -tr 10 1 C7 In Cif .07 'cf r CO LC N O 0 Of N O) LO CO LO C6 O CO r A N r M O CA N M O 7 CO A r .+ O � 04 N LL w 69 w N w w w w w w w ww w 6A w w 69 69 w w 69 w w cc � M M r IV L L i i L 1` -W co i O a 0 N CO r r eNLL - M d O R ~ r N t a a 6969 ww e% 69 ww ww w6969 6069 69 w 69 w 69 w 69w w Lc) r U MM � Mti o� °i m cm a) r r M > r d r C j r N 0 0 O jN L U d 0 w69 wN► 69 69 w 6969 E9w69 Efl ww 69 ERwwd9 EA EA 69 w L i L i i i 1 d 1 1 d 1 1 LO r a m M M T d T 1 -1 LCJ T M' •.y. c 0 R r r M M ICT r r ..•�` Q N L M I a w6ss w6A 69. 6969646H w 6969 69w 6469 w69 w69w69 w k L0 1 1 I 1 1 I LO T N O m O CO O et 0 Ln O O O o r� O -V' c0 0 0 O N LO c N T O < T cc 0 00 V LO N tO O N -RT LO O O M 6-) m r L?7 M 'S O M tf7 O lO CO O M LO ' r O ti O ti 00 1 O N LO T d Ch r 1C'1 R R r (D CO N CO C M M LO e- CO C7 M t(I > O Ul N T M O LO M M O M LO N L r T T Cl) i d C1 fA w 69! OF fA 69 69 69 64 69 U4 69 69 69 w 609 69 69). 69 69 ff► 69 69 N► Q N N r N TIT r T pp Ln O O O O O w N N ti C LO O R O ti r 0 CD M r.- = T O R LO L� cl 0n Lfl CCT LO M O CO rU,) O co M C O V' CO M r r N r I-- d9 69 69 69 69. 69 r.+ � d N Cf co 10 cm co .0 c61 d 0] m 1 C ° > V > — X U U �. z a) H CDc O Q R c d LA 0 V R ` y � � oI cc 3 U a�ci o o a •� 3 0 3 d Z c c L m U c Qa X FR � Lu CUm N L v m N N cn o a) E � N O c 2 d N U7 m Cl) Q w U m w y O -O �. N .0 U d m R ° cn Q d 07 Lo d °1 CL ° W a� cv CL C > m CC R ixm a o CL d -0 m g' is 0 n CJ r,� o m ._ U t°- O O pp C p C N_ N_ C O O C O o0 00 O 00 00 CO O N Vl ( �D of �/1 O 7 N �D t.: M CN ^ O � 69 69 Ni 69 fA d9 69 69 EA i C; M n C U O O c 7 O O .D O C^ v? N � N faA 6•f 69 69 69 b9 d Vl i. O � � r+l t•1 ^ •-• y n yy J O O A es Ian ,j CC �J U = N N V i — y :J > y � � '— J C. J ^ on UQ. 7 C U > X O J — (f rq G U U u � F a tz CC O O O 1 V c c c c c o 0 o $ 8 0 0 o c c c o N N V� ffl [� v1 C N N C N F sy v* 69 bs sv 60q eq tz u Fn ^L I.n C C C C C , ,h (14 N a: W) N N eq L4 N O L V N O R IZ C O u ycs :n y y C v C - Cn -1V to O ' L. w � v v 7 U � C � y > ^ cn v = O O U Q� G = COG v i i. J 7 J J m C — .❑ .O O — C y Uvs s O = ? 3 z = _ •`� y .V n y u ? p C +• %> .Nip C = .. O U -0,y tj •J 'O •� N ¢ U �' m a: O C O y ^ _ U cs 1 ') = :D = v O ^ ^ U C O y ^^. U C A v � � .^ � v :, C U •C •� N O � 3 � �: L � 7 v Gr. > .- U7 •-� ,. _ y O >+ O L - L O G u U > '� L v O 7 O� O U V] N 4 M. U �v o c o 00 C; R tN'1 F 69 vi 6'! `e C� rrn O O O 00 O �: U N O C c N nr O N p vi b9 69 L C N CO N 00 O H 60-1 O U 3 a O n :G to ZO cn no cn to cl cl •J 7 n CJ r' ^ � N CJ n ' .y. K y a .. ,� ... O O O .W. p •^ a = �`^ C L :n is a`i C U O n U L C N o O G. x � 1 r 0 0 0 0 moo• N Q � N 0 N y rr V � y •� 3 c: � c o a y 3 - o � y y O n � n A n U U H u N T :7 y y h � a y Q � U U :L Z G L - G � C i � A Z L m cl n v 7 U U � ^J � y J 7 N ^ � y C. MAL Exhibit C Compensation Payment will be made for each project phase and based on the successful testing and acceptance of the deliverables outlined in Exhibit G Statement of Work&Deliverables.The listing below represents a summary for each project phase milestones. Pay Point Target Date Payment Amount Phase 1 -System Design June 30,2001 S 218,274.42 EDMS System Design Document Completed EDNIS Implementation Document Completed Software Installed, Configured and Operational Server Environment Sign Off Deployment Sign Off Documentation Sign Off Training Completed Phase 2 -Conversion September 30, 2001 S 111,004.14 Image Conversion implementation Document Completed Images Conversion Sign Off Phase 3-HIV a Integration December 31, 2001 S 98,9-59.69 Interface Design Document Completed Interface Design Implementation Document Completed Interface Software Installed, Configured and Operational Phase 4-J.D.Edwards Integration March 30, 2002 S 118,600.90 Interface Design Document Completed Interface Design Implementation Document Completed Interface Software Installed, Configured and Operational Total Compensation S 546,838.15 Cin'of Bert( FINAL Exhibit D Statement of Work & Deliverables 1. PROJECT PURPOSE: The purpose of the project is to acquire an Enterprise Document Management System for the City of Kent,Washington. 2. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this contract is to enable the staff to improve quality and timeliness of customer services;provide for and improve disaster recovery for and safety of mission-critical documents through electronic storage; reduce reliance on paper flow for the large volume of business information;manage projected increases in customer volumes and services;facilitate providing new customer services e.g.,Web-enable imaging and document management;streamline the City processes through imaging, and document management.. 3. PROJECT MANAGEIIENT AND ORGANIZATION: The Contractor will report to the City's Contract Manager. The Contract Manager or his/her designee will review and approve all deliverables. 4. DELIVERABLES: Task Who Start Date End Date Project Kickoff FYI, COK 4/4/01 4/4/01 Meet the Players I FYI,COK Discuss Roles FYI, COK Set up Committees FYI,COK Establish Reporting procedures FYI, COK Lay out schedule FYI,COK Review workspace FYI, COK Discuss Equipment FYI, COK Phase 1 - System Design Software Installation FYI, COK Hardware Configuration I FYI, COK Testing FYI, COK Validation FYI,COK Client Deployment I FYI, COK User Training FYI, COK Develop Schedule FYI, COK EDNIS Software Design Document FYI, COK draft, review, modify EDMS Software Design Document City of Kent Approved Implementation Plan, Meetings FYI,COK Implementation Plan Document FYI Drafted Implementation Plan Approved FINAL Task Who Start Date End Date /~ SQL Server,Request Broker,Info Broker, Storage Server Installed, OS Ready and Network Connectivity Verified City of Kent Install SCSI card,Test,and Configure Jukebox/External Optical Storage FYI Install,Configure and Test Optika Software on all servers. FYI Draft Administrative Procedures Document for Optika Operations FYI Create Test Application and Gallery Definitions FYI Build Bar Code definitions for Patch Code Pages FYI Test Scan and Retrieval Processes FYI Test Web Client& Print and Email FYI Server Environment Testing Completed FYI, COK Create Production Environment Filer Application& Galleries FYI Create and Publish Batch Classes, Storage Classes,Galleries,and User Groups FYI Test scanning (scan to retrieval) FYI Modifv and change Administrative Procedures Document as needed. FYI Production Environment Ready FYI, COK Refine N'T User Group Access to Galleries and Gallery Settings FYI, COK Refine Batch and Ad-Hoc scanning procedures&classes. FYI Create and Test Email distribution Lists for Optika Files City of Kent Deployment Plan Tested and Signed Off FYI,COK Rollout Support FYI Develop Custom Training Curriculum for Optika and eCapture FYI Compile Documentation and Publish City of Kent Cin-or,tent FINAL Task Who Start Date End Date Training Documentation Completed '1 and Signed Off FYI,COK Install, Configure and Test Scanning Stations(eCapture)for Testing and Production FYI Meetings to Determine Batch Classes&Scripts FYI,COK Create and Publish Batch Classes and Release Scripts FYI Scan Documentation Meetings City of Kent Draft Scanning Procedures Document City of Kent Application Development Training Optika Administrator Training Completed (off-site Colorado Springs) City of Kent Scanning and Hardware Support Training for 2 Administrators for eCapture(on-site) FYI Scanning Operator Training Completed(on-site) FYI, COK End-User Training Completed FYI, COK GO LIVE-City Clerk FYI,COK I 06/30/01 GO LIVE-Police/Corrections FYI,COK 06i30/01 GO LIVE- Police/Records FYI, COK 06i30/01 GO LIVE -Public Works I FYI, COK I 06i30101 GO LIVE-Community Development FYI, COK 06/30/01 GO LIVE- Central Scanning Station-City Hall FYI. COK I 06/30/01 GO LIVE -Central Scanning Station-Centennial FYI, COK 06i30101 Phase 2 - Image Conversion Image Conversion Meetings I FYI, COK Programmatic Conversion Approach defined, and documented. for images with complete database index entries. FYI,COK Conversion Approach defined and documented for TIFF images within the image database,but are cross- indexed. FYI,COK FINAL Task Who Start Date End Date Conversion Approach defined and documented for PDA images with index entries in the database but are externally stored on optical media. FYI,COK Image Conversion Implementation Document draft,review,modify FYI,COK Image Conversion Implementation Document Approved FYI, COK Custom Conversion Program Developed and Tested FYI Bench Mark Testing Completed FYI Install,Configure,Test Conversion workstation FYI Quality Control Tests Developed I FYI,COK City Clerk Conversion Completed City of Kent 09/30/01 Police-Corrections Completed I City of Kent 09/30/01 Police- Records RAW TIFF Completed City of Kent 09/30/01 Police-Records Completed City of Kent 09/30/01 Community Development Completed City of Kent 09/30/01 Public Works Completed City of Kent 09/30/01 Phase III - Image Enable Permit Tracking System (KIV A) I Interface Design Team Meeting (KIVA) FYI. COK i Interface Design Document draft, review, modifv FYI, COK Process for Attaching New and Converted =ages FYI, COK Image Viewing Design Developed FYI, COK Indexing Scheme Designed I FYI, COK Indexing Scheme Reviewed, modified FYI, COK Interface Design Document Completed FYI, COK Interface Implementation Plan Document drafted, reviewed, modified FYI, COK C:ry of Kant FINAL Task Who Start Date End Date Interface Implementation Plan Completed FYI,COK Install,Configure and Test and deploy Custom Integration Software FYI End-User Training City of Kent Deployment Completed FYI, COK 12/31/01 Phase IV- Image Enable JD Edwards Interface Design Team Meeting (JD Edwards) FYI, COK Finance-General Ledger Screens Defined FYI, COK Finance-Budget Development Screens Defined FYI,COK Finance-Accounts Payable Screens Defined FYI, COK Finance- Purchasing Screens Defined FYI. COK Finance-Fixed Assets Screens Defined FYI, COK Finance-Accounts Receivable Screens Defined FYI, COK HR-Applicant Tracking Screens Defined FYI, COK HR-Employee Relations Screens Defined FYI, COK HR-Position Control Screens Defined FYI. COK HR- Classification& Compensation Screens Defined FYI. COK HR-Benefits Screens Defined FYI, COK HR- Payroll Screens Defined FYI, COK Interface Design Document to allow Image Viewing from JDE Oneworld screens; draft,review, modify FYI, COK Indexing Scheme Designed FYI, COK Indexing Scheme Reviewed, modified FYI, COK Interface Design Document Completed FYI, COK '� FINAL Task Who Start Date End Date Interface Implementation Plan Document drafted,reviewed, modified FYI, COK Interface Implementation Plan Completed FYI,COK Install, Configure and Test Optika Software FYI Deployment Completed FYI, COK 03/30/02 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: FLEX PASS PROGRAM AGREEMENT, COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign a one-year agreement for the sale of F1exPass, a King County/ Sound Transit Commute Trip Reduction program, to all benefited employees . The F1exPass Program allows for benefited employees to choose from a variety of non-single occupancy vehicle commute options provided by Sound transit and King County. 3 . EXHIBITS: Agreement 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $37 , 752 SOURCE OF FUNDS : General Fund - Commute Trip Reduction 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6F AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF FLEXPASSES BETWEEN KING COUNTY, SOUND TRANSIT AND CITY OF KENT This Agreement(hereinafter,"Agreement") is made and entered into by and between King County(hereinafter individually, "KING COUNTY"), Sound Transit(hereinafter"SOUND TRANSIT Sound Transit"),or collectively referred to(hereinafter, as"TRANSPORTATION PARTIES"),and City Of Kent(hereinafter, "COMPANY"). RECITALS A. COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES share the desire to provide a comprehensive transportation pass program that will reduce single occupant vehicle(SOV)commute trips and improve the mobility of COMPANY employees. B. KING COUNTY and SOUND TRANSIT are authorized to provide public transportation and generally promote alternatives to SOV commuting in King County,Pierce County and Snohomish County. C. COMPANY has a desire to provide incentives and benefits to its employees,which promote non-SOV commuting to its worksite. D. COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES desire to create a single pass media that can be used to access a variety of services and benefits,which enable COMPANY employees to commute,by non-SOV modes. AGREEMENT NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the tetras,conditions and covenants herein contained, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,the parties hereto agree to the following. 1. PURPOSE 1.1 Purpose This Agreement establishes a cooperative arrangement between TRANSPORTATION PARTIES and COMPANY for sale and distribution of FlexPasses to COMPANY's Eligible Employees at the rate set forth herein. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Eligible Employees Eligible Employees shall mean only those employees of the COMPANY who meet the following criteria: All benefited regular full-time and regular part-time employees. 2.2 FlexPass Card A FlexPass Card is a pass of predetermined duration,usually twelve(12)months,that allows each Eligible Employee,as defined in Paragraph 2.1,to choose from a variety of non-SOV commute options provided by COMPANY or TRANSPORTATION PARTIES. Each FlexPass Card shall bear the inscriptions"FlexPass," COMPANY's name, each TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' logo,or an agreed to regional logo and beginning and expiration dates in a design and color scheme mutually agreed upon by TRANSPORTATION PARTIES and COMPANY. FlexPass Cards shall also bear a fare amount on the face of the card,the amount of which shall be agreed upon by TRANSPORTATION PARTIES and COMPANY prior to the start of this Agreement. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES or their designated contractor shall produce FlexPass Cards. FlexPass Card's are non-refundable by TRANSPORTATION PARTIES, except as set forth in Paragraph 8.2. Eligible Employees may be asked to present a valid COMPANY identification card when using a FlexPass, if available. 2.3 Trip Revenue Trip revenue shall mean the cost of a single bus trip taken by a COMPANY's employee as set forth in Attachment A. In the event of a generally applicable fare increase adopted by KING COUNTY or SOUND TRANSIT,the amount of the cost may be increased at such time as a generally applicable fare increase is implemented by KING COUNTY or SOUND TRANSIT, and COMPANY shall be required to pay the amount of such adjustment to the appropriate party. FlexPass Agreement Page 1 City of Kent April 1.2001 —March 31,2002 2.4 Baseline Trips Baseline Trips shall mean the estimated number of transit trips taken by COMPANY's Eligible Employees, as defined in Paragraph 2.1,in the twelve(12)months preceding execution of the COMPANY's new FlexPass Agreement. Baseline Trips shall be calculated using the most current transit ridership data available on Eligible Employees,at the time said Agreement becomes effective. Baseline Trips shall be used,in part,to calculate the price of the transit cost set forth in Attachment A. Baseline Trips shall not change during the life of this Agreement, unless agreed to by TRANSPORTATION PARTIES for reasons,such as a significant change in the number of Eligible Employees or a change in location of COMPANY's wotksite. 2.5 Added Trips Added Trips shall mean those trips taken by COMPANY's Eligible Employees that have exceeded Baseline Trips, as defined in Paragraph 2.4,during the period since Baseline Trips was established. Added Trips shall be calculated using an estimate,based on a survey or other agreed upon equivalent data source,of current transit ridership by Eligible Employees. Added Trips shall be used, in part,with Baseline Trips to calculate the price of renewing this Agreement for another term. 3. EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS AND COMMUTE BENEFITS AND INCENTIVES 3.1 Eligible Employee Contributions COMPANY may require Eligible Employees to contribute toward the cost of a FlexPass Card, in the amount specified in Attachment B. 3.2 COMPANY-Provided Incentives and Benefits COMPANY shall provide at least two(2)additional non-single occupant vehicle commute mode incentives or benefits, listed in Attachments A or B,as a condition of participating in TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' FlexPass program. 4. COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Eligible Recipients of A FlexPass Card COMPANY shall ensure that only Eligible Employees,as defined in Paragraph 2.1,receive FlexPass cards. 4.2 Ordering FlexPass Cards COMPANY shall provide to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' representative, as listed in Section 16,the number of FlexPass Cards that COMPANY shall provide to Eligible Employees. The number of FlexPass Cards shall be listed in Attachment A. COMPANY shall allow TRANSPORTATION PARTIES at least four(4)weeks in advance of the cards' effective date to fulfill the request for FlexPass Cards. COMPANY understands that failure to provide the number of FlexPass Cards desired at least four(4)weeks in advance, may incur additional and extraordinary costs. Such costs may be related to,but are not limited to; overtime staffing, additional manufacturing charges and express delivery charges. These additional and extraordinary charges shall be borne solely by COMPANY. 4.3 Ordering Additional FlexPass Cards COMPANY shall retain the right to purchase additional FlexPass Cards for distribution to Eligible Employees, over and above the number specified in Attachment A,during the term of this Agreement. COMPANY shall allow TRANSPORTATION PARTIES at least four(4) weeks to fulfill the request for additional FlexPass Cards. Requests shall be made to the TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' representative,as listed in Section 16. The cost for a single additional FlexPass Card shall be the Monthly Rate for Additional FlexPass Cards specified in Attachment A, times the number of months remaining in the Agreement. FlexPass Agreement 2 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31,2002 4.4 Receipt and Security of FlexPass Cards COMPANY agrees that all FlexPass Cards received from TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall become the sole financial responsibility of COMPANY upon receipt and signature by an employee,official or agent of COMPANY. COMPANY agrees that it is solely responsible for providing proper storage and security measures for any and all FlexPass Cards received by COMPANY while in the custody of COMPANY. COMPANY shall be held liable for the equivalent value of a combination King County Metro/Sound Transit fare for each month remaining in this Agreement for each FlexPass Card that COMPANY cannot account for,either by distribution to an Eligible Employee,storage in a secure area, for each FlexPass Card not collected from an Eligible Employee who terminates their employment with COMPANY or otherwise becomes ineligible to receive and use a FlexPass Card under the terms of this Agreement, or for each FlexPass Card COMPANY cannot return to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES upon termination of this Agreement, as specified in Section 8. 4.5 Reporting COMPANY shall immediately report to each of the TRANSPORTATION PARTIES any FlexPass Cards that are lost,stolen, damaged or otherwise not functioning properly in TRANSPORTATION PARTIES transit coaches' electronic registering fareboxes. COMPANY shall return any and all FlexPass Cards to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES that COMPANY believes to be defective. COMPANY shall report to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES all FlexPass usage,changes to COMPANY's transportation program and other details as necessary. 4.6 Roster of FlexPass Card Recipients COMPANY shall maintain a roster of Eligible Employees who have been provided a FlexPass Card by COMPANY. Upon demand, COMPANY shall provide to each of the TRANSPORTATION PARTIES a copy of the roster. 4.7 FlexPass Employee Use Agreement Form Each Eligible Employee who receives a FlexPass Card from COMPANY shall be required to read, sign and return to their employee transportation coordinator or department supervisor, an agreement form stipulating the uses and conditions of a FlexPass Card. The Employee Use Agreement Form, as set forth in Attachment C,is deemed mutually acceptable to both COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES. COMPANY shall keep use Agreement Forms on file for the term of this Agreement. 4.8 Collection of FlexPass Cards COMPANY shall return to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES all FlexPass Cards issued to COMPANY within five (5)days of the effective date of termination of this Agreement. COMPANY shall be held liable for the equivalent value of a combination King County Metro/Sound Transit fare for each month remaining in this Agreement for each FlexPass Card not returned to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES upon termination of this Agreement. 4.9 Collection of Transit Ridership Data COMPANY shall survey,or otherwise collect from COMPANY's Eligible Employees, any and all necessary daily transit ridership and commute data that TRANSPORTATION PARTIES deem necessary to accurately and fairly estimate Trip Revenue, Baseline Trips and Added Trips. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall provide to COMPANY a mutually agreed upon survey instrument or other suitable means in which to collect the most current and accurate ridership and commute data possible. 4.10 FlexPass Program Evaluation COMPANY shall participate in any TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' evaluation of the FlexPass program, should such an evaluation be deemed necessary by any of the TRANSPORTATION PARTIES. Evaluation may be through such means as employee surveys, employee focus groups, and management interviews. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall provide COMPANY at least thirty(30)days advance notice prior to beginning such an evaluation. /^ FlexPass Agreement 3 City of Kent April I.2001 —March 31,2002 4.11 Vanpool Services If an eligible employee elects to participate in KING COUNTY's vanpool program,COMPANY agrees to pay KING COUNTY the amount stated in Attachment A for such vanpool services. As stipulated in Attachment A, Eligible Employees may use the FlexPass Card as partial or full payment of their vanpool fare. If actual vanpool expenses incurred by Eligible Employees exceed the amount paid in advance by COMPANY,as specified in Attachment A,plus any vanpool incentive payment by KING COUNTY,also specified in Attachment A,KING COUNTY shall invoice COMPANY for any amount owing once total vanpool costs for the term of this Agreement are calculated by KING COUNTY. 4.12 Home Free Guarantee If COMPANY elects to participate in KING COUNTY's Home Free Guarantee program, COMPANY shall fulfill all conditions and responsibilities of the Home Free Guarantee program in accordance with the terms attached hereto and made part hereof as Attachment D. 5. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Transit Access TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall allow each COMPANY Eligible Employee displaying a valid FlexPass Card to ride on all parts of its regular route transportation system without additional charge, for trips up to the value printed on the card. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES reserve the right to request additional payment at the time the transit trip is taken,if the cost of a trip on any TRANSPORTATION PARTY's regular transit service exceeds the fare value printed on the FlexPass Card. FlexPass Cards are not valid on any Husky,Safeco Field,or other special event service. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall honor each FlexPass Card issued under this agreement up to the expiration date on the Card or until this agreement is otherwise terminated. 5.2 FlexPass Card Administration TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' Designated Representative shall manage production,ordering,replacement and delivery of FlexPass Cards to COMPANY, and other administrative tasks related to the FlexPass Card under this Agreement,other than those responsibilities stated as COMPANY responsibilities in Section 4. 5.3 Replacement FlexPass Cards -� TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall replace, at no additional cost to COMPANY,any FlexPass Cards deemed to be defective or otherwise unusable or inoperative. COMPANY may be issued temporary full passes until TRANSPORTATION PARTIES can manufacture and deliver replacement FlexPass Cards. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall replace a lost or stolen FlexPass Card only once at a charge of$50 per replacement card. 5.4 Confiscation of FlexPass Cards In addition to any other rights under law,TRANSPORTATION PARTIES reserve the right to cancel and confiscate a FlexPass Card which is used out of date, altered, duplicated,counterfeited,transferred or distributed to unauthorized persons or otherwise invalid under the terms of this Agreement. 5.5 Collection of Transit Ridership Data TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall provide to COMPANY, at no additional cost to COMPANY,a mutually agreed upon survey instrument or other suitable means in which to collect and measure the most current and accurate transit ridership and commute data of COMPANY's Eligible Employees. In addition, TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall pay for all costs incurred in processing this survey instrument,but not costs incurred by COMPANY in distributing to and collecting from Eligible Employees, this survey instrument. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall make available to COMPANY,all data collected from COMPANY's Eligible Employees. 5.6 Vanpool Services COMPANY's employees are eligible to access KING COUNTY's vanpool program in accordance with established program procedures. If applicable,KING COUNTY shall allow each Eligible Employee holding a FlexPass Card to register as a vanpool participant subject to the availability of vanpool vehicles and minimum ridership requirements. If applicable, the FlexPass Card may be honored as full or partial payment of vanpool fares,as specified in Attachments A and B. 5.7 Home Free Guarantee FlexPass Agreement 4 City of Kent April 1,2001 —March 31,2002 If COMPANY elects to participate in KING COUNTY's Home Free Guarantee program,KING COUNTY shall fulfill all conditions and responsibilities of the Home Free Guarantee program in accordance with the terms attached hereto and made part hereof as Attachment D. /"` 6. PAYMENTS AND BILLING 6.1 Payment for This Agreement COMPANY agrees to pay TRANSPORTATION PARTIES the total amount stated in Attachment A for participation in TRANSPORTATION PARTIES' F1exPass program. KING COUNTY shall present an invoice for amounts due to COMPANY's representative listed in Section 16. KING COUNTY shall invoice COMPANY for the amount(s)due for SOUND TRANSIT. Payment shall be made in full by COMPANY according to the terms listed on the invoices,unless a payment schedule is mutually agreed upon by both parties and incorporated into this Agreement, in Attachment A. KING COUNTY shall present individual invoices to COMPANY for additional F1exPass Cards purchased. KING COUNTY shall invoice COMPANY for the amount(s) due for SOUND TRANSIT for additional F1exPass Cards purchased. 6.2 • Late Payment Penalty If any scheduled payments are not made by their due date,then the entire amount due under this Agreement shall become immediately due and payable. Any late payment shall be subject to a penalty accruing at the maximum rate allowable by state law for each month that the payment remains due. If any check made payable to any of the TRANSPORTATION PARTIES by COMPANY is returned to a TRANSPORTATION PARTY for insufficient funds(NSF)in COMPANY's checking account,then COMPANY shall be assessed a$25(twenty-five)penalty by the TRANSPORTATION PARTY receiving the NSF check. 7. TERM OF AGREEMENT 7.1 Term This Agreement shall take effect upon the exact day and expire on the exact day specified in this paragraph,unless terminated in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 8. This Agreement shall take effect at 12:00 a.m. on April 1,2001 and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on March 31,2002. 8. TERMINATION 8.1 Termination for Cause Any parry may terminate this Agreement in the event the other fails to perform its obligations as described in this Agreement by providing written notice not less than fourteen(14)days prior to the effective date of termination. 8.2 Termination for Convenience Any party may also terminate this Agreement for convenience and without cause by providing the other party with written notice not less the sixty(60)days in advance. If COMPANY has made payments in advance,COMPANY shall be entitled to reimbursement from each TRANSPORTATION PARTY for each valid F1exPass Card returned to TRANSPORTATION PARTIES. Such reimbursement shall be at the monthly rate set forth in Attachment A for the full months remaining in the term of the Agreement. If COMPANY has accrued additional financial obligations to any TRANSPORTATION PARTY as a result of the provisions of this Agreement, either prior to termination or as a result of termination, COMPANY agrees to pay any outstanding amount due to the TRANSPORTATION PARTY. The TRANSPORTATION PARTY shall invoice COMPANY for the amount due according to the procedures outlined in Section 6. 9. RECORDS 9.1 Rights of Review Both COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall retain the right to review records and documents related to this Agreement. If a records review is commenced more than sixty(60)days after the termination of the contract, the TRANSPORTATION PARTY requesting the review shall give ten(10)days notice to COMPANY of the date on which the records review will begin. FlexPass Agreement 5 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31,2002 10. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 10.1 Written Approval This Agreement and all terms,provisions.,conditions and covenants hereof shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. All patties,however, agree that they will not assign or delegate the duties to be performed under this Agreement without prior,written approval from the other parties. 11. LEGAL RELATIONS 11.1 No Partnership and No Third Party Beneficiaries It is agreed by COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES that this Agreement does not create a partnership or joint venture relationship between the parties,and does not benefit or create any rights in a third party. 11.2 Force Majeure TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall be excused from performance of any responsibilities and obligations under this Agreement for causes not under its control, including but not limited to incidence of fire, flood, snow, earthquake or other acts of nature, riots, insurrection, accident, order of any court or civil authority,and strikes or other labor actions. 11.3 Costs of Legal Action COMPANY shall be liable for any and all reasonable attorney fees,court costs and other expenses�incurred by TRANSPORTATION PARTIES in the event TRANSPORTATION PARTIES pursue legal action to obtain the return of any F1exPass Cards or amount owing under this Agreement. 12. APPLICABLE LAW,FORUM 12.1 Terms This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Washington. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as altering or diminishing the rights or responsibilities of the parties as granted or imposed by state law. In the event that any litigation may be filed between the parties regarding this Agreement, COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES agree that personal jurisdiction and venue shall rest in the Superior Court of the county where the TRANSPORTATION PARTY pursuing the action resides. 13. DISPUTES .1 13.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure All claims or disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be referred to a panel consisting of COMPANY's Benefits Manager, KING COUNTY's General Manager,and SOUND TRANSIT's Executive Director,or their designees. If this panel is unable to reach a mutually acceptable resolution,it shall appoint another person to serve as mediator in the effort to resolve the claim or dispute. Such mediation shall be required before an action may be filed to adjudicate the claim or dispute in a court of law. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT 14.1 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 14.2 Amendments and Modifications This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written instrument signed by the parties hereto. 15, SAVINGS 15.1 Definition Should any provision of this Agreement be deemed invalid or inconsistent with any federal,state or local law or regulation, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. All parties agree to immediately attempt to renegotiate such provision that is invalidated or superseded by such laws or regulations. FlexPass Agreement 6 City of Kent April 1,2001 —March 31,2002 16. CONTACT PERSONS 16.1 Definition COMPANY and TRANSPORTATION PARTIES shall designate a contact person for purposes of sending inquiries and notices regarding the execution and fulfillment of this Agreement,as well as ordering of all fare media and vouchers. 16.2 Designated Contact Persons COMPANY KING COUNTY Contact Name Karen Ford Jeffrey K. Won Title Employee Transportation Coordinator Transit Planner Address 220 Fourth Avenue S. 400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR-0600 Kent,WA 98032-5895 Seattle,WA 98104-2615 Telei3hone 253-856-5292 206-263-3452 Fax 253-856-6270 206-684-2058 E-Mail kfordaci.kent.wa.us jeff-mkt-dev.wonq@metrokc.gov SOUND TRANSIT FLEXPASS CARD ORDERING& RETURNING Contact Name Tony Fuentes Jeffrey K.Won Title Systems Inte ration Project Manager Transit Planner Address Union Station 401 S. Jackson Street 400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR-0600 Seattle, WA 98104-2826 Seattle,WA 98104-2615 Telephone 206-689-3357 206-263-3452 Fax 206-398-5215 206-684-2058 E-Mail f ientest .soundtransit.or ieff-mkt-dev.wongPmetrokc.gov 17. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT 17.1 Definition This Agreement shall be executed in three(3)counterparts,each one of which shall be regarded for all purposes as one original. In Witness whereof,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. COMPANY KING COUNTY BY BY Jim White Jim Jacobson Title: Mavor Title: Manager, Transit Service Development Date: Date: SOUND TRANSIT BY Kino County per Agent Agreement Title: N/A FlzzPass Agreement 7 City of Kent April I.2001 —March 31,2002 FlexPass Agreement Attachment A-Agreement Costs Company City of Kent Date February 13, 2001 ^1 KING COUNTY SERVICES TRANSIT COST Baseline Trips(Data Source: CTR survey 1 2,430 Added Trips(Data Source: N/A 1 + 0 Discount of Added Trips(Year#1: 013 discount of 0 trips) 0 Total Trips = 2,430 Cost per Trip x $ 1.17 Transit Cost = $2,843. CARD PRODUCTION COST Number of FlexPass Cards Produced 800 Rate per Card x $1.00 Card Production Cost = $800. HOME FREE GUARANTEE COST Number of Covered Employees 800 Rate per Covered Emplovee x $1.00 Home Free Guarantee Cost = $800. METRO VANPOOL COST Number of Existing participants 39 Estimated number of New participants + 6 Monthly vanpool fare subsidy x $ 63.00 Number of months in Agreement x 12 Vanpool Cost = $34,020. FlexPass Card monthly fare subsidy value = $63.00 KING COUNTY INCENTIVES Joint vanpool subsidy incentive for 6 new van000lers King County covers New participants 3 Monthly vanpool fare subsidy x $ 63.00 ?Number of months in Aereement x 12 King County vanpool subsidy share = $2,268. Pass Production + $ 800. Home Free Guarantee + $ 800. Total King County Incentives = . $3,868. KING COUNTY TOTAL AGREEMENT COST Transit $ 2,843. Card Production Cost + $ 800. Home Free Guarantee + $ 800. Vanpool + $34,020. Less: Kina County incentives $ 3,868. Total King County Cost = $34,595. Payment Schedule: '/2 due in 60 days; '/2 due in 180 days. Number of FlexPass Cards Provided By King County = 800 King County Monthly Rate for ONE Additional FlexPass Card: _ $0.46 ($4,443/ 800 employees/ 12 months=$0.46) FlexPass Agreement 8 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31,2002 FlexPass Agreement Attachment A- Agreement Costs (coot.) Company City of Kent Date February 13,2001 SOUND TRANSIT SERVICES TRANSIT COST Transit Trips(Data Source: CTR survev ) 2,133 Cost ner Trip x $1.48 Transit Cost = $3,157. SOUND TRANSIT TOTAL AGREEMENT COST Transit + $ 3.157. Total Agreement Cost = $ 3,157. Payment Schedule: '/z due in 60 days; %:due in 180 days. Number of FlexPass Cards to be issued under this Agreement = 800 Sound Transit Monthly Rate for ONE Additional FlexPass Card: _ $0.33 ($3,157 1800 employees/ 12 months=$0.33) TRANSPORTATION PARTIES TOTAL AGREEMENT COST King County Metro Transit 1 $34,595. Sound Transit + $ 3,157. Total Agreement Cost = $37,752. TRANSPORTATION PARTIES ALLOCATION OF TRANSIT COST King County Metro Transit $4,443. Sound Transit + $3,157. Total Transit Cost = $7,600. Number of FlexPass Cards to be issued under this Agreement = 800 Monthly Rate for Additional FlexPass Cards = $ 0.79 ($7,600/800 employees/ 12 months=$079) Allocation King County $0.46 Sound Transit $0.33 FlexPass Agreement 9 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31,2002 FlexPass Agreement Attachment B -Employee Contributions and Company Provided Benefits/Incentives Company City of Kent Date February 13. 2001 METRO TRANSITISOUND TRANSIT FLEXPASS Amount Contributed By Each Employee $0 VANPOOL FARE SUBSIDY Benefit Per Vanpooler Per Month up to$63.00 EMERGENCY GUARANTEED RIDE HOME King County's Home Free Guarantee Program- See Attachment D. CARPOOLERS AND NON-MOTORIZED COMMUTERS Benefit Per Participating Employee Per Month (See parking benefit below) PARKING Benefit Per Employee Per Month in a carpool Free priority parking in City garage Benefit Per Employee Per Month in a vanpool Free priority parking in City garage FlexPass Agreement 10 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31,2002 KENT WASHINGTON FlexPass Agreement Attachment C City of Kent Employee Use Agreement FLEXPASS As a FlexPass holder, I agree to the following: 1. The FlexPass is a benefit provided to me as an employee and is to be used only during the period I am employed by the City. 2. I will use my FlexPass for my own transportation only. I will not transfer or loan my FlexPass to any person or family member. 3. I will keep my FlexPass secure and in good condition. I will immediately report a lost,stolen or damaged FlexPass to the Transportation Coordinator. I understand a lost FlexPass will be replaced only once per year at a charge of$50.00. A non-working FlexPass will be replaced free of charge. 4. I will return my FlexPass upon request or when I leave my employment with the City of Kent. If I do not return my FlexPass, I authorize the amount of$90.00 for each whole and partial month remaining on the FlexPass to be withheld from my paycheck. 5. If I participate in the vanpool program I understand that the City subsidizes$63.00 per month for my vanpool fare via the FlexPass card, I understand that I am responsible for the balance of the fare each month,payable to the vanpool bookkeeper. I acknowledge the receipt of my FlexPass, and understand and agree to the terms stated above on using the ` FlexPass. Employee's Signature Date Employee's Printed Name FlexPass Serial# Employee's Department/Division Issued by Date Transportation Coordinator Use Only—FlexPass returned: Employee's Signature Date FlexPass Serial# FlexPass Agreement 11 City of Kent April 1,2001 —March 31,2002 FlexPass Agreement Attachment D-Home Free Guarantee Home Free Guarantee(hereinafter,"HFG") is a KING COUNTY program that guarantees payment for taxi fares incurred by employees deemed eligible by the COMPANY for emergency rides taken in accordance with the terms set forth below. D.1 DEFINITIONS D.1.1 Approved Commute Modes Eligible Employees must have commuted from their principal residence or Park&Ride to the COMPANY's worksite by one of the following modes: Bus, carpool, vanpool,walk-on or bicycle-on ferry,bicycle,or walk. D.1.2 Eligible Reasons For Using HFG The following are the only eligible reasons for using HFG: a) Eligible Employee's or family member's unexpected illness or emergency. b) Unexpected schedule change such that the normal commute mode is not available for the return commute to the starting place of their commute. Unexpected means the employee learns of the schedule change that day. c) Missing the employee's normal return commute to the starting place of their commute for reasons,other than weather, or act of nature which are beyond the employee's control and of which they had no prior knowledge. For example, the employee's carpool driver left work or worked late unexpectedly. D.1.3 Non-Eligible Reasons For Using HFG Reasons which are not eligible for HFG use include,but are not limited to,the following: a) Pre-scheduled medical or other appointments. b) To transport individuals who have incurred injury or illness related to their occupation. An HFG ride should NEVER be used where an ambulance is appropriate,nor should an HFG ride replace COMPANY's legal responsibility under workers' compensation laws and regulations. c) Other situations where, in the opinion of the COMPANY's Program Coordinator, alternate transportation could have been arranged ahead of time. D.1.4 Eligible Destinations for an HFG Ride a) From the COMPANY's worksite to the Eligible Employee's principal place of residence. b) From the COMPANY's worksite to the Eligible Employee's personal vehicle,e.g.vehicle located at a Park& Ride lot, c) From the COMPANY's worksite to the Eligible Employee's usual commute ferry terminal on the east side of Puget Sound. D.1.5 Intermediate Stops Intermediate stops are permitted only if they are of an emergency nature and are requested in advance by Eligible Employee and are authorized in advance of the ride by the COMPANY's Program Coordinator(i.e.pick up a necessary prescription at a pharmacy;pick up a sick child at school). D.2 COMPANY RESPONSIBILITIES D.2.1 HFG Program Payment COMPANY's payment for HFG services is accounted for in the base price for FlexPass Cards as indicated in Attachment A. If a company's fare costs exceed amount listed in Attachment A at the end of 6 months, a sliding scale charge will be applied as follows: a) If total fare costs average between$1.00 and$1.25/employee,Company may be charged$1.25/employee for second six months of the agreement period. b) If total fare costs average between$1.25 and$1.50/employee, Company may be charged$1.50/employee for second six months of the agreement period. c) and so on incrementally without limit. D.2.2 Program Coordinator COMPANY shall designate as many Program Coordinators as necessary to administer and perform the necessary HFG program tasks set forth below. FlexPass Agreement 12 City of Kent April I,2001 —March 31.2002 D.2.3 Number Of HFG Rides Per Eligible Employee COMPANY shall ensure that each Eligible Employee does not exceed eight(8)HFG rides per twelve(12)month / period. D.3 HFG Program Tasks D.3.1 Process To access HFG rides,Eligible Employees shall contact the Program Coordinator. The Program Coordinator shall call directly an answering service provider, contracted for by KING COUNTY. The phone number shall be supplied to COMPANY by KING COUNTY. COMPANY agrees to make information about how to access HFG rides to all Eligible Employees. Eligible Employees shall supply the following information to the Program Coordinator, who shall in turn provide the information to the answering service provider: a) Verify the Eligible Employee has commuted to the worksite by an eligible mode. b) Verify the Eligible Employee has an eligible reason and eligible destination for an HFG ride. c) Ensure the Eligible Employee has valid identification to show the taxi driver. d) Once an Eligible Employee takes the emergency taxi ride,the Eligible Employee shall provide a receipt from the taxi trip to COMPANY'S Program Coordinator. e) COMPANY's Program Coordinator shall forward copies of such receipts to KING COUNTY at the end of each month for record keeping and accounting purposes. f) The answering service provider shall arrange taxi rides for the Eligible Employee. DA KING COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES D.4.1 Participating Taxi Company(s) COMPANY agrees that neither KING COUNTY or answering service provider is responsible for providing transportation services under the HFG program. COMPANY further agrees that KING COUNTY makes no guarantee or warranty as to the availability, quality or reliability of taxi service, and that the KING COUNTY's sole obligation under the program is to make payment of the taxi provider for trips actually taken in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. COMPANY agrees it shall make no claims of any kind or bring any suits of any kind against the KING COUNTY for damages or injuries of any kind arising out of or in any way related to the HFG r program. Without limiting the foregoing and by way of example only, the COMPANY agrees that KING COUNTY shall not be liable for any injuries or damages caused by negligence or intentional acts occurring before, during or after a taxi ride or for any injuries or damages caused by failure of a taxi to provide a ride due to negligence, intentional acts or causes beyond the taxi's control, including but not limited to incidence of fire, flood, snow,earthquake or other acts of nature,riots, insurrection,accident, order of any court or civil authority, and strikes or other labor actions. D.4.2 Payment of Authorized HFG Taxi Fares KING COUNTY shall pay the metered fare amount of a COMPANY's Program Coordinator-authorized HFG ride, as defined in the DEFINITIONS section above, for a one-way distance of up to sixty(60) miles. Any fare for a one- way distance in excess of sixty(60)miles shall be paid by the individual taking the HFG ride. KING COUNTY shall not pay any taxi driver gratuity, which shall be paid by and at the sole discretion of the individual taking the HFG ride. D.4.3 Reporting KING COUNTY shall keep a complete record of all authorized HFG ride requests on a semi-annual basis and provide a copy of this record to the designated COMPANY contact person specified in Section 16.2. D.4.4 Program Abuse KING COUNTY reserves the right to investigate and recover costs from the COMPANY of intentional abuse of the HFG program by Eligible Employees. Program abuse is defined as,but not limited to,taking trips for inappropriate reasons, unauthorized destinations and intermediate stops, and pre-scheduled appointments not defined in the DEFINITIONS section above. FlecPass Agreement 13 City of Kent April 1,2001 -March 31,2002 /o Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20, 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: PREMERA BLUE CROSS/GROUP HEALTH CONTRACTS FOR 2001 - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Renewal of the annual Premera Blue Cross administrative agreement and Group Health Cooperative health care contracts for 2001 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Health care contracts for 2001 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $739, 969 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Medical Fund 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6G ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN PREMERA BLUE CROSS AND CITY OF KENT This Contract is effective this first day of January, 2001, by and between the CITY OF KENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan Sponsor"), and PREMERA BLUE CROSS (hereinafter referred to as the "Claims Administrator"). WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor has established an employee benefit plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") which provides for payment of certain welfare benefits to and for certain eligible individuals as defined by the Plan Document, such individuals being hereinafter referred to as "Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries"; and, WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor has chosen to self-insure the benefit program(s) provided under the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan Sponsor desires to engage the services of the Claims Administrator to provide administrative services for the Plan; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions as contained herein the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION I DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLAN SPONSOR 1.01 The Plan Sponsor shall provide the Claims Administrator with a copy of the Plan Document and any other documents describing the benefit program(s) that the Claims Administrator may rely upon in performing its responsibilities under this Contract. 1.02 The Plan Sponsor shall have final discretionary authority to determine the benefit provisions and to construe and interpret the terms of the Plan. 1.03 The Plan Sponsor shall have final discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits and the amount to be paid by the benefit program(s). 1.04 The Plan Sponsor shall conduct the ERISA claims appeal process 1.05 Unless specifically delegated to the.Claims Administrator by this Contract, the Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for the proper administration of the Plan including: a. providing the Claims Administrator a complete and accurate list of all individuals eligible for benefits under the benefit program(s) �. upon which the Claims Administrator shall be entitled to rely until it receives documentation of any change thereto; 7486T 1 b. notifying the Claims Administrator on a monthly basis of changes in eligibility; C. distributing to all eligible Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries all appropriate and necessary materials and documents, including but not limited to benefit program booklets, summary plan descriptions, material modifications, the Plan Document, amendments to the Plan Document, . identification cards, enrollment applications and notice forms necessary for the operation of the Plan; d. providing the Claims Administrator with any additional information necessary to perform its functions under this Contract as may be requested by the Claims Administrator from time to time; e. maintaining adequate funds from which the total cost of all claims for each preceding week will be paid to the Claims Administrator by wire transfer. Funds must be provided within f- forty-eight (48) hours of phone notification by the Claims Administrator to a person designated by the Plan Sponsor. 1.06 The Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for all taxes, assessments and fees levied by any local, state or federal authority in connection with the Claims Administrator's duties pursuant to this Contract. 1.07 The Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for the Plan's continuing compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act,of 1985 (COBRA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Plan Sponsor, and not the Claims Administrator, is the "plan administrator" for purposes of 29 USC Section 1002(I6) (a) and 26 USC Section 498013(g) (3) and the "plan sponsor" for purposes of 29 USC Section 1161, at seq. The Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for determining whether it is subject to COBRA and for notifying Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries of their COBRA rights both initially and upon the occurrence of a qualifying event, for calculating and collecting premiums for COBRA continuation of coverage and for promptly notifying the Claims Administrator when an individual is no longer eligible for COBRA continuation of coverage. 1.08 The Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for defending any legal action brought against the Plan, including a claim for benefits by or on behalf of any individual or entity, including but not limited to any Participant or former Participant, Dependent, Beneficiary, any fiduciary or other party. This responsibility includes the selection and payment of counsel. The Plan Sponsor shall not settle any legal action or claim without the prior consent of the Claims Administrator if the action or claim could result in the Claims Administrator being liable, including for example, any liability for contribution to or indemnification of the Plan Sponsor or other third party either directly or indirectly. 1.09 In the event the Claims Administrator does not have adequate information to complete the Certificate of Group Health Coverage as required by HIPAA, the Plan Sponsor shall be responsible for completing 7486T 2 the missing information on the Certificate and forwarding it to the Participant, Dependent or Beneficiary upon their termination from the Plan or upon request within 24 months of termination. SECTION II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 2.01 The Claims Administrator agrees to perform the following administrative services for the Plan Sponsor: a. assist in the preparation and printing of the Plan Document, benefit program booklets, identification cards, and other materials necessary for the operation of the Plan; b. process all eligible claims incurred after the effective date of this Contract which are properly submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan Document. Checks will be issued on the Claims Administrator's check stock, but the responsibility for funding benefits is the Plan Sponsor's and the Claims Administrator is not acting as an insurer. The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to determine that a claim is covered under the terms of the benefit program(s), to apply the coordination of benefits provisions, identify subrogation claims, and make reasonable efforts to recover subrogated amounts administratively, and prepare and distribute benefit payments to Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries and/or service providers; C. perform reasonable internal audits; �^ d. answer inquiries from the Plan Sponsor, Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries, and service providers regarding the terms of the Plan, although final authority for construing the terms of the Plan's eligibility and benefit provisions is the Plan Sponsor's; e. prepare and provide to the Plan Sponsor monthly reports of claims paid under the Plan in accordance with Attachment C; f. prepare and provide the Plan Sponsor with an annual report of the operations of the Plan in accordance with Attachment C; g, provide information to the Plan Sponsor for preparing Form 5500's; however, the Plan Sponsor shall be solely responsible for insuring timely filing of the Form 5500's; h. coordinate with any stop-loss insurance carrier; L when "preferred provider" benefits are provided, maintain a network of hospital and professional providers; paid claims will reflect any negotiated provider discounts; j. perform utilization management services including, preadmission review, admission review, length of stay assignment, focused concurrent review, discharge planning, individual case management and retrospective review. r" 7486T 3 k. provide a Certificate of Group Health Coverage to Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries when their coverage under this Plan terminates or upon their request within 24 months of termination. In the event the Claims Administrator does not have adequate information to complete the Certificate, the Plan Sponsor will be responsible for completing the missing information on the Certificate and forwarding it to the Participant, Dependent or Beneficiary. SECTION III LIMITS OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY 3.01 It is recognized and understood by the Plan Sponsor that the Claims Administrator is not an insurer and that the Claims Administrator's sole function is to provide claims administration services and the Claims Administrator shall have no liability for the funding of benefits. 3.02 If during the course of an audit performed internally by the Claims Administrator pursuant to Section 2.0l,c. or by the Plan Sponsor pursuant to Section VI of this Contract any error is discovered, the Claims Administrator shall use reasonable efforts to recover any loss resulting from such error. 3.03 The Claims Administrator is an independent contractor with respect to the services being performed pursuant to this Contract and shall not for any purpose be deemed an employee of the Plan Sponsor. 3.04 This Contract is between the Claims Administrator and the Plan Sponsor and does not create any legal relationship between the Claims Administrator and any Participant, Dependent, Beneficiary or any other individual. 3.05 It is recognized by the parties that errors may occur and it is agreed that the Claims Administrator will not be held liable for such errors unless they resulted from its gross negligence or willful misconduct. The Plan Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Claims Administrator from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses arising out of the Claims Administrator's performance of administration services under the terms of this Contract, so long as they did not arise out of the Claims Administrator's gross negligence or willful misconduct. SECTION IV FEES OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR 4.01 By the first of each month, The Plan Sponsor shall pay the Claims Administrator in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Attachment D that is incorporated herein by reference. 4.02 Late Payments a. If, for any reason whatsoever, the Plan Sponsor fails to make a timely payment required under this Contract, the Claims Administrator may suspend performance of services to the Plan Sponsor, including processing and payment of claims, until such time as the Plan Sponsor makes the required payment, including interest as set forth in b. below. 7486T 4 b. The Claims Administrator will charge interest to the Plan Sponsor on all late payments, including amounts paid to reinstate this Contract after termination pursuant to Section 9.05, at the average annual prime rate posted by Bank of America plus two (2) percent on the amount of the late payments for the number of days late. Interest will be in addition to any other amounts payable under this Contract. C. In the event of late payment, the Claims Administrator may terminate this Contract pursuant to Section 9.05. Acceptance of late payments by the Claims Administrator shall not constitute a waiver of its right to cancel this Contract due to delinquent or nonpayment of fees. SECTION V OUT-OF-AREA PROGRAM 5.01 BlueCard' Access Fees Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans outside of the Washington and Alaska service area may charge the Claims Administrator a fee (referred to as an access fee) for making their discounted rates and the resulting savings available on claims incurred by the Plan Sponsor's Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries. The access fee, if one is charged, is up to 10 percent (but not to exceed $2,000 for any claim) of the discount the local Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plan has obtained from its providers. The access fee may be charged only if that Plan's arrangement with the provider prohibits billing enrollees for amounts in excess of the discounted rate. However, providers may bill for deductibles, coinsurance, amounts in excess of stated benefit maximums, and charges for noncovered services. In the event a participating provider discount cannot be passed along to the Participant, Dependent or Beneficiary, no discount or access fee will apply. 5.02 How Access Fees Affect The Plan When the Claims Administrator is charged an access fee, it will be charged to the Plan as a claims expense. If the Claims Administrator receives an access fee credit, it will be given to the Plan as a claims expense credit. Access fees are considered a claims expense because they represent claims dollars the Plan is unable to, or in the case of a credit, avoid paying. Instances may occur in which the Claims Administrator does not pay a claim (or pays only a small amount) because the amounts eligible for payment were applied to the deductible and/or coinsurance. If the local Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plan's arrangement with its providers allows the discounted payment rate to apply when the amount is fully or mostly a patient obligation, the Claims Administrator will pay access fee and pass it along to the Plan as a claims expense even though little or none of the claim was paid. 'The BlueCard is a program name established by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. 7486T 5 SECTION VI AUDIT 6.01 Within thirty (30) days of written notice from the Plan Sponsor, the Claims Administrator shall allow an authorized agent of the Plan ^� Sponsor to inspect or audit all records and files maintained by the Claims Administrator which are directly pertinent to the administration of the Plan. Such documents shall be made available at the administrative office of the Claims Administrator during normal business hours. The Plan Sponsor shall be liable for any and all fees charged by the auditor. Any agent or auditor who has access to the records and files maintained by the Claims Administrator shall agree not to disclose any proprietary or confidential information used in the business of the Claims Administrator. SECTION VII SUBROGATION 7.01 The Claims Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to pursue subrogation claims administratively on behalf of the Plan. However, the Claims Administrator shall have no affirmative duty to pursue subrogation claims beyond those specified in section 2.01,b. The Plan Sponsor shall have the sole discretion to bring any legal claim or action to enforce the Plan's subrogation provisions. The Claims Administrator will cooperate with the Plan Sponsor in the event the Plan Sponsor brings any legal action to enforce the subrogation provisions of the Plan. Any costs and attorneys' fees incurred in pursuing such subrogation claims shall be the responsibility of the Plan Sponsor. SECTION VIII TERM OF CONTRACT 8.01 The term of this Contract shall be the period from 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2001, to midnight on December 31, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract Period"). 8.02 Except as stated otherwise in section 9.03 below, the terms and conditions of this Contract and the fee schedule set forth in Attachment D are established for the Contract Period. 8.03 The Plan Sponsor acknowledges that the fee schedule set forth in Attachment D and the services provided for in this Contract are based upon the terms of the Plan and the enrollment as they exist on the effective date of this Contract. Any substantial changes, whether required by law or otherwise, in the terms and provisions of the Plan or in enrollment may require that the Claims Administrator incur additional expenses. The parties agree that any substantial change, as determined by the Claims Administrator, shall result in the alteration of the fee schedule, even if the alteration is during the Contract Period. The phrase "any substantial change" shall include, but not be limited to: a. a fluctuation of ten (10) percent or more in the number of Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries as set forth on the census information included in Attachment B which is herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Contract; 7486T 6 b. the addition of benefit program(s) or any change in the terms of the Plan's eligibility rules, benefit provisions or record keeping �7 rules that would increase administration costs by more than $2,000; C. any change in claims administrative services, benefits or eligibility required by law; d. any change in administrative procedures from those in force at the inception of this Contract that is agreed upon by the parties; e. any additional services which the Claims Administrator undertakes to perform at the request of the Plan Sponsor which are not specified in this Contract such as the handling of mailings or preparation of statistical reports and surveys not specified in this Contract. SECTION IX TERMINATION 9.01 The Plan Sponsor may terminate this Contract at any time by giving the Claims Administrator thirty (30) days written notice. 9.02 This Contract will terminate on the last day of the Contract Period or the last day of any extension of the Contract Period granted by the Plan Administrator. 9.03 Either party may terminate this Contract effective immediately by giving written notice to the other if a party becomes insolvent, makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, files a voluntary petition �-- of bankruptcy, suffers or permits the appointment of a receiver for its business or assets, or becomes subject to any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law, whether foreign or domestic. A party is insolvent if it has ceased to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business; cannot pay its debts as they become due; or the sum of its debts is greater than the value of its property at a fair valuation. 9.04 If loss of services is caused by, or either party is unable to peirfo�m any of its obligations under this Contract, or to enjoy any of its benefits because of natural disaster, action or decrees of governmental bodies or communication failure not the fault of the affected party, such loss or inability to perform shall not be deemed a breach. The party who has been so affected shall immediately give notice to the other party and shall do everything possible to resume performance. Upon receipt of such notice, all obligations under this Contract shall be immediately suspended. If the period of nonperformance exceeds thirty (30) days from the receipt of such notice, the party whose performance has not been so affected may, as its sole remedy, terminate this Contract by written notice to the other party effective immediately. In the event of such termination, the Plan Sponsor shall remain liable to the Claims Administrator for all payments due, together with interest thereon as provided for in Section 4.02. 9.05 The Claims Administrator may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Contract effective as of a missed payment due date in the event that the Plan Sponsor fails to make a timely payment required under this Contract. 7486T 7 9.06 In the event this Contract is terminated prior to the end of the Contract Period, the Plan Sponsor shall remain liable to the Claims Administrator for all delinquent sums together with interest thereon as provided for in ., section 4.02 above. Furthermore, because the Claims Administrator will have incurred fixed costs which, but for the termination, would have been recouped over the course of the Contract Period, as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, the Plan Sponsor shall pay the Claims Administrator an amount equal to two (2) months administration fee at the rate set forth in Attachment D multiplied by the average number of Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries covered by the Plan for the immediately preceding six (6) month period or such shorter period if this Contract has not been in effect for a period of six (6) months. The Plan Sponsor shall remain liable for claims incurred during the Contract Period but not paid during the Contract Period and for the claims run-out processing fee set forth in subsection C of Attachment D. 9.07 Within one hundred twenty (120) days of termination by either party, the Claims Administrator shall deliver to the Plan Sponsor an interim accounting. Within fifteen (15) .months of termination the Claims Administrator shall deliver to the Plan Sponsor a complete and final accounting of the status of the Plan. At the expense of the Plan Sponsor, the Claims Administrator shall make available a record of deductibles and coinsurance levels for each Participant, Dependent and Beneficiary and deliver this information to the Plan Sponsor or its authorized agent. 9.08 For the twelve (12) month period following termination of this Contract, the Claims Administrator shall continue to process eligible claims incurred prior to termination at the claims run-out processing fee rate set forth in Attachment D. SECTION X DISCLOSURE 10.01 It is recognized and understood by the Plan Sponsor that the Claims Administrator is subject to'all laws and regulations applicable to Claims Administrators and health care service contractors. 10.02 It is recognized and understood by the Plan Sponsor that the Claims Administrator is not acting as an insurer and also is not providing stop- loss insurance. SECTION XI OTHER PROVISIONS 11.01 Choice of Law The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Contract shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the state of Washington, unless federal law applies. Any and all disputes concerning this Contract shall be resolved in WASHINGTON King County Superior Court. The party substantially prevailing shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees. 7486T 8 4 11.02 Trademarks The Claims Administrator reserves the right to, the control of, and the use of the words "Premera Blue Cross" and all symbols, trademarks and service marks existing or hereafter established. The Plan Sponsor shall not use such words, symbols, trademarks or service marks in advertising, promotional materials, materials supplied to Participants, Dependents and Beneficiaries or otherwise without the Claims Administrator's prior written consent which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 11.03 Independent Corporation The Plan Sponsor hereby expressly acknowledges, on behalf of itself and all of its eligible employees and their eligible dependents, its understanding that this Administrative Service Contract constitutes a Contract solely between the Plan Sponsor and the Claims Administrator, that the Claims Administrator is an independent corporation operating under a license with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans (the "Association") permitting the Claims Administrator to use the Blue Cross Service Mark in the States of Washington and Alaska, and that the Claims Administrator is not contracting as the agent of the Association. The Plan Sponsor further acknowledges and agrees that it has not entered into this Administrative Service Contract based upon representations by any person other than the Claims Administrator, and that no person, entity or organization other than the Claims Administrator shall be held accountable or liable to the Plan Sponsor for any of the Claims Administrator's obligations to the Plan Sponsor created under this Administrative Service Contract. This provision shall not create any additional obligations whatsoever on the Claims Administrator's part other than those obligations created under other provisions of this Administrative Service Contract. 11.04 Notice Except for the notice given pursuant td section 1.04,e., any notice required or permitted to be given by this Contract shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered three (3) days after deposit in the United States mail, postage fully prepaid, return receipt requested, and addressed to the other party at the address as shown below. 11.05 Integration This Contract, including any appendices or attachments incorporated herein by reference, embodies the entire Contract and understanding of the parties and supersedes all prior oral and written communications between them. Only a writing signed by both parties hereto hereof may modify the terms. 11.06 Assignment Neither party shall assign this Contract or any of its duties or /^ responsibilities hereunder without the prior written approval of the other. 7486T 9 11.07 Year 2000 Compliance The Group and Premera Blue Cross, referred to hereafter as the "parties," shall exchange all electronic data in compliance with the data transfer specifications described below. If data transmitted by either party (each referred to as "Data Transmitter" or "Data Receiver" as appropriate) are not in compliance with such data transfer specifications, the Data Transmitter shall, at its sole cost and expense, promptly generate and resubmit data in compliance with the data transfer specifications, in a manner that minimizes interruption of the Data Receiver's business processes, with time being of the essence. For all transmissions of electronic data, the parties shall use the electronic data translators or formats ("Permitted Data Formats") described in the table below. The Permitted Data Formats require Patient Date of Birth to be transmitted in a 4-digit form (i.e., mm/dd/yyyy). PERMITTED DATA FORMATS DATA FIELDS REQUIRING 4-DIGIT YEARS NSF Patient Date of Birth Institutional-vs 5.0 and up Professional-vs 1.04 and u Ansi x12 - DCDS 837 vs 3041 Patient Date of Birth ITS release 8 Patient Date of Birth ECC - Revised 6/01/1998 Patient Date of Birth Envoy - vs 2.1 and up Patient Date of Birth 11.08 Confidentiality Of Participant And Dependent Information No employee, agent, or other representative of the Claims Administrator will provide to the Plan Sponsor any personal health information pertaining to Participants or their Dependents that is either implicitly or explicitly identifiable. In addition,,the Plan Sponsor will not ask or direct any employee, agent, or other representative of the Claims Administrator to divulge such information. However, this provision shall not apply if the Plan Sponsor has signed and delivered to the Claims Administrator the required non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement that protects personal health information against use in any action or decision affecting or relating to a Participant or Dependent. 7486T l0 SECTION XII ATTACHMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CONTRACT 12.01 The following attach to and become part of the body of this Contract and they are herein incorporated by reference. Attachment A - Plan Document Attachment B - Census Attachment C - Reporting Attachment D - Fee Schedule Attachment E - Right Of Conversion Attachment F - Performance Guarantees The parties below have signed as duly authorized officers and have hereby executed this Contract. If this Contract is not signed and returned to the Claims Administrator within sixty (60) days of its delivery to the Plan Sponsor or its agent, the Claims Administrator will assume the Plan Sponsor's concurrence and the Plan Sponsor will be bound by its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto sign their names as duly authorized officers and have executed this Contract. CITY OF KENT BY: DATE: Title ADDRESS: PREMERA BLUE CROSS BY: DATE: January 5, 2001 H. R. Brereton Barlow President and Chief Executive Officer Title ADDRESS: 7001-220th Street SW Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 7486T 11 ATTACHMENT A PLAN DOCUMENT CITY OF KENT (Plan Sponsor) The employee benefit programs set forth in the Plan Document are available to certain eligible individuals as defined within the benefits programs. All benefits of this Plan Document are subject to the terms and conditions stated herein and included or issued thereafter. Premera Blue Cross has the discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe the terms used in this Plan Document. Premera Blue Cross has been selected by CITY OF KENT to administer the benefits of this Plan Document. Premera Blue Cross is not the underwriter of this Plan Document. CITY OF KENT is solely and totally responsible for: funding benefits under the benefit programs; compliance with all applicable laws and regulations affecting the benefit programs; and fiduciary liability for the benefit programs. If, for any reason, the Administrative Service Contract between Premera Blue Cross and CITY OF KENT terminates, Premera Blue Cross shall be relieved of its administrative duties under this Plan Document, except as otherwise provided in the Administrative Service Contract. This Plan Document attaches to and becomes a part of the Administrative Service Contract effective January 1, 2001. CITY OF KENT By: Date: Title By: Date: Title 7486T 12 ATTACHMENT B CENSUS INFORMATION Administration Fees, effective January 1, 2001 are based on the following: Number of Active and Retired Enrollees: Employee Spouse Children Medical/Rx 784 515 856 Dental 825 535 902 Vision 827 536 906 Number of COBRA Enrollees Employee Spouse Children Medical/Rx 17 6 8 Dental 13 5 6 Vision 17 6 8 Other Carriers Offered: Group Health Cooperative PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 7486T 13 ATTACHMENT C .•� REPORTING THe following reports will be provided to the Plan Sponsor within the fees set forth in Attachment D: Report Title Frequency Weekly Claims Recap Weekly Detail Claim Runs Monthly Premium/Claims Report Monthly Large Claims Analysis Yearly PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 7486T 14 ATTACHMENT D FEES OF THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR Pursuant to the Administrative Service Contract, the Group shall pay the Claims Administrator a fee, as set forth below, for administrative services. A. Administration Fees: Composite #13596, -99 $44.08 #17620, -01 $44.08 #22066 $44.08 #13597, -01 $ 6.22 #17884 $ 1.92 B. Other Fees: Booklets $1.75 per book /^ I.D. Cards $ .75 per card Prescription Drug Charge $1.20 per claim Conversion Contract Fee $1,000 per conversion C. Claims runout processing fee: 5.00% of runout claims processed by PBC 12.00% of runout claims processed by VSP PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 ATTACHMENT E 7486T 15 RIGHT OF CONVERSION FOR TERMINATED PLAN PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS The Plan Sponsor requests that the Claims Administrator provide a conversion privilege to terminated Plan Participants and their dependents in of the following: Responsibilities of the Claims Administrator The Claims Administrator shall make available to Plan Participants and their dependents an opportunity to obtain health care coverage (hereinafter referred to as Conversion Contract) when they are no longer eligible for coverage under the Plan due to: • Termination of employment. • Termination of benefits for the class in which the Plan Participant or dependent belongs. • A covered dependent's attainment of the limiting age. • A covered spouse's legal separation or divorce. • Death of a covered employee. The Claims Administrator shall not be required to issue a Conversion Contract if the Plan Participant or dependent becomes covered under a group health insurance policy within 31 days after termination of his or her coverage under the Plan. Application and payment of the applicable rate for the Conversion Contract must be made by the Plan Participant or dependent within 31 days after such individual's conversion privilege of its group health coverage contracts. Rates for the Conversion Contract shall be determined by the Claims Administrator and be the some as those then in effect for coverage offered under the standard conversion privilege of its group health coverage contracts. Rates will not be guaranteed and the Claims Administrator will have the right to change the rate of any Conversion Contract. Compensation The Plan Sponsor shall pay the Claims Administrator a $1,000 conversion privilege fee for each conversion contract issued to a former Plan Participant or dependent. The Claims Administrator shall notify the Plan Sponsor of the conversion privilege fees owed in connection with the weekly notification of claims paid. PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 7486T 16 ATTACHMENT F Performance Guarantees The following represents the standard of performance in administering the CITY OF KENT health care plan. Unless otherwise indicated, "plan" excludes any requests for out-of- contract payments. All customer service measures are based upon the overall performance of Premera Blue Cross Group Operations Division and do not reflect solely the services provided solely to CITY OF KENT unless otherwise noted. Requests for service other than from member and provider claims submittals and/or phone calls to the designated Customer Service Unit will be excluded unless otherwise indicated. The penalties will be measured on a quarterly basis unless otherwise indicated. Maximum penalties are calculated on an annual basis. The annual maximum of all penalties is limited to $50,000. Financial Accuracy Guarantee: 97% financial accuracy. Definition: 1- ( ($ Overpays + $ Underpays)/($ Total Paid + $ Underpays - $ Overpays) ) Annual Penalty: $5,000 for every .5% below 97%; maximum penalty is $20,000. !� Measurement: Independent audit using a stratified random sample method with the point estimate calculated from the sample used as the measurement of financial error. Performed on an annual basis. Administrative (Processing) Accuracy Guarantee: 97% administrative accuracy. Definition: 1 minus (Total number claims paid correctly / Total number claims paid) Annual Penalty: $2,500 for each 1% below 97%. Maximum penalty is $10,000. Measurement: Independent audit using a stratified random sample method with the point estimate calculated from the sample used as the measurement of administrative error. Performed on an annual basis. PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 7486T 17 Turnaround Time Guarantee: 80% of all claims are paid or processed within 14 calendar days Definition: Number of days from the date of receipt of the claim to the date of final processing. . For out-of-contract claim payment requests, the date is measured from the receipt of the claim request in writing on the form (Administrative Request Form) provided for this purpose. Weekends and holidays are included in turnaround time. Processing includes generating requests for additional information. Annual Penalty: $2,50O for each 1.0% below the 80% target. Maximum penalty is $10,000. Measurement: Premera's automated report showing CITY OF KENT's unit's results or using an independent audit. Performed on a quarterly basis. Satisfaction with Claim Processing Guarantee: 85% of respondents to a survey of CITY OF KENT claimants will be satisfied or very satisfied with claim processing. All CITY OF KENT employees will be included in the survey. Definition: CITY OF KENT employees have overall satisfaction with claim processing based on a random survey. Annual Penalty: $10,O0O at risk if over 15% or more CITY OF KENT employees are dissatisfied. Performed in October 2001 for year 2001 and every twelve months thereafter. ,..� Measurement. CITY OF KENT survey which is reviewed and approved in advance " by Premera Blue Cross. Survey to be distributed by CITY OF KENT and results to be compiled by Broker/Consultant. At least 50% of participating employees must respond to the survey before the performance is measured. Account Management Guarantee: Premera Blue Cross will guarantee superior account management services. Definition: CITY OF KENT management will be informed in advance of all key changes affecting the program, with sufficient lead time to allow for review and approval if necessary. PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 "1 7486T 18 Information regarding the administration of the program shall be communicated through all appropriate areas of Premera Blue Cross consistently, accurately, and on a timely basis. Communication shall be completed within 30 days of our receipt of written notification of changes from CITY OF KENT. Annual Penalty: Fees reduced by $2,500 for each time one of the above is not met, up to a maximum of $10,000 for both categories. Membership Services Phone Accessibility Guarantee: Framers Blue Cross will guarantee Membership Services phone accessibility during regular business hours to CITY OF KENT plan members. Definitions: Phone accessibility will meet the following minimum standards: 1. Satisfactory speed of answer: all phone calls into local membership services' units will be answered within 45 seconds on average. 2. Satisfactory abandoned call rate: Less than 5% in aggregate. Annual Penalty: For every 1% below the target for 1 and 2 above, Premera Blue Cross will reduce its service fee by $2,500, up to a maximum of $10,000 for both categories combined. r Measurement: Premera Blue Cross automated reports. PLAN SPONSOR: City Of Kent PLAN NUMBER: 17620, 22066, 13596-99, 13597, -01, 17884 PLAN DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2001 7486T 19 GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF PUGET SOUND CONTRACT REVISIONS Effective January 1, 2001 CONTRACT LANGUAGE/BENEFTT CHANGE EXPLANATION General Statement Revisions to the group medical coverage agreement are subject to change. Allowances Schedule The benefit period allowance under chemical dependency services has been increased to a$10,326 maximum per Member per any 24 consecutive calendar month period. The new standard emergency care copay at GH Facilities is now set at S75(with a$125 deductible at non-GH Facilities). Enrollment/Eligibility Requirements The provision concerning persons hospitalized on the effective date of their GHC coverage has been revised in accordance with HIPAA requirements. Definitions A clarification has been made to state that GH Primary Care Providers and GH Providers are employed by GHC or Group Health Permanente. Grievance/Appeal Procedures Written complaints/grievances are now to be submitted to PO Box 34593(rather than the street address for Riverton Operations Center). Miscellaneous Provision A confidentiality provision has been added in response to a NCQA requirement. Implants A clarification has been made to state that Medically Necessary implants, which are not experimental or investigational,are covered as determined by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Excluded are internally implanted insulin pumps, artificial hearts, artificial larynx,and any other implantable device that has not been approved by GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee. Oral nutritional supplements A clarification has been added to state that dietary formulas, oral nutritional supplements,and special diets,except i- for treatment of phenylketonuria(PKU) 0036900-CO8410 2 and total.parenteral and enteral nutritional -� therapy,are excluded. Maternity care A clarification has been made to the maternity care section to delete the reference to the 48 hour requirement for normal deliveries and 96 hour requirement for cesarean deliveries. Since Washington state law meets certain specified criteria required by HIPAA,the H1PAA requirement of 48196 hour lengths of stay is being removed. Prescription drugs Another clarification has been made to state Generic drugs will be dispensed whenever available.Brand name drugs,sill be dispensed if there is not a generic equivalent.In the event the Member elects to purchase brand-name drugs instead of the generic equivalent(if available),or if the Member elects to purchase a different. brand-name or generic drug than that prescribed by the Member's Provider,and it is not determined to be Medically Necessary,the Member will be subject to payment of the additional amount above the generic drug charge. A clarification has also been made to state vitamins,including Legend(prescription) vitamins,are excluded. Mental health care A clarification has been made to exclude residential care. Exclusions A clarification has been made to the experimental and investigational exclusion. concerning the timeframe in which GHC will respond to a fully documented appeal request. The timeframe has been changed from fourteen days to twenty days in accordance with Washington state law. A clarification has been made to the pre- existing condition exclusion that other than services for maternity care and those provided for enrolled eligible newborn and adopted newborn children,Pre-existing Conditions shall be excluded from coverage until such time as the Member has been continuously covered under this Agreement for three(3)consecutive months.Crediting time on a previous GHC plan has been deleted because a portability provision already exists in the exclusion. A clarification has been made which states 0036900-CO8410 3 Genetic testing and related services are excluded unless determined Medically Necessary by GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee,or specifically provided in Section X.B. Testing for non-Members is also excluded. Dues Schedule All references to"dues"have been revised to state"premiums". 0036900-CO8410 4 Group 40 tOth 11 ofCfatiVe urld GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound(also referred to as"GHC","Group Health","GH"or the"Cooperative") is a nonprofit health maintenance organization furnishing health care primarily on a prepayment basis.As a direct service provider,the Cooperative is dedicated to providing to its Members quality health care, including preventive medical services. This Agreement states the terms of enrollment,payment and coverage under which a Group may secure GHC health benefits. The Schedule of Benefits lists the benefits to which those enrolled under this Agreement are entitled. Words with special meaning are capitalized. They are defined in Section I. MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO COVERED SERVICES ONLY AT GH FACILITIES AN-D FROM GHP PROVIDERS, UNLESS THE MEMBER HAS BEEN REFERRED BY A GH PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER OR HAS RECEIVED EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCORDING TO SECTION X.L. OF THE SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS. Female Members may see a participating General and Family Practitioner, Physician's Assistant, Gynecologist, Certified Nurse Midwife, Doctor of Osteopathy, Obstetrician and Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner who provide women's health care services directly, without a Referral from their Primary Care Provider, for medically necessary and appropriate maternity care, covered reproductive health services, preventive care and -general examinations, gynecological care, and medically appropriate follow-up visits for the above services. Women's health care services are covered as if your Primary Care Provider had been consulted, subject td any applicable Copayments and/or Coinsurance as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. If your women's health care provider diagnoses a condition that requires referral to other specialists or hospitalization, you or your chosen prodder must obtain preauthorization and care coordination in accordance with applicable GHC requirements. For more information on women's health care providers,contact Group Health Customer Service Center. Limited direct access to providers within GHC's defined network is also available for manipulative therapy as set forth in Section X.B. 0036900-CO8410 5 Table of Contents r— Summary of Allowances and Enrollment/Eligibility Requirements I. Definitions II. Premiums,Fees and Copayments III. Termination IV. Continuation Coverage, Conversion,and Transfer V. Coordination of Benefits VI. Subrogation VII. Grievance/Appeal Procedures VM. Miscellaneous Provisions IX. Enrollment Schedule X. Schedule of Benefits M. Exclusions and Limitations XII. Claims • Medicare Endorsements(if applicable) • Premiums Schedule • Service Area Map PA-113301 0036900-CO8410 6 ALLOWANCES SCHEDULE The benefits described in this schedule are subject to all provisions,limitations and exclusions set forth in the Group Medical Coverage Agreement. ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE Not applicable. PLAN COINSURANCE Not applicable. LIFETIME MAXIMUM Not applicable. INPATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES: All inpatient medical and surgical hospital care services, including acute chemical withdrawal(detoxification) No Copayment. Covered in full. OUTPATIENT SERVICES:All outpatient medical and surgical services are subject to the stated Copayment ,..� $5 Copayment per visit per Member. DRUGS—OUTPATIENT(INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH DRUGS AND DIABETIC SUPPLIES) Drugs and medicines which require a prescription when pro,6-ided at GH Facilities and prescribed by a GHP Provider for a supply of thirty(30)days or less of an outpatient prescription or refill is subject to the stated Copayment. Covered subject to the lesser of GHC's charge or a$5 Copayment. STOP LOSS: Total out-of-pocket Copayment expenses for the following Covered Services: • Inpatient Hospital Services(if applicable) • Outpatient Services • Emergency Care at a GH,GH Designated or non-GH Facility • Ambulance services Limited to an aggregate maximum of$2,000 per Member and 54,000 per family per calendar year. ACCIDENTAL INJURY TO NATURAL TEETH Not covered. 0036900-008410 7 ALLERGY TESTING/SERUM Allergy testing is covered subject to the office visit copayment. Allergy serum is covered subject to a Copayment equal to 12 times the pharmacy copay or GHC's price,whichever is less. AMBULANCE SERVICES: • Emergency ground/air transport to a GH Facility,GH Designated Facility,or non-GH Designated Facility. Covered at 80%. • Non-emergent transfer to a GH or GH Designated Facility Covered in full. No Copayment. BLOOD AND BLOOD DERIVATIVES: Blood administration,blood processing fees and blood derivatives are covered. BREAST PROSTHESIS AND MASTECTOMY BRAS: See Devices,Equipment and Supplies. CARDIAC REHABILITATION PROGRAMS: Not covered. CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY: • Inpatient Services' Covered subject to the applicable inpatient Copayment. • Outpatient Services Covered subject-to the applicable office visit Copayment. • Benefit Period Allowance $10,326 maximum per Member per any 24 consecutive calendar month period Acute detoxification covered as any other medical service. Not subject to 24 month maximums. CIRCUMCISION(ROUTINE): Covered. 0036900-008410 8 CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES: r `� Not Covered. DEVICES,EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES: • Orthopedic appliances when prescribed by a GHP Provider and listed as covered in the Orthopedic Appliance Formulary. • Durable medical equipment when prescribed by a GHP Provider and listed as covered in the durable medical equipment formulary • Prosthetic devices when prescribed by a GHP Provider and listed as covered in the prosthetic device formulary • Ostomy supplies • Oxygen and oxygen equipment • Post-mastectomy bras(limited to two every 6 months) Covered at 80%Cohmmance. DIABETIC SUPPLIES: Insulin, needles, syringes and lancets covered under Drugs-Outpatient.' External insulin pumps, blood glucose monitors and supplies covered under Devices,Equipment and Supplies. DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY AND RADIOLOGY SERVICES "1 Covered in full. EMERGENCY CARE: • At a GH or GH Designated Facility $50 Copayment per Emergency visit per Member. Copayment is waived if Member is admitted directly from the Emergency department. • At a non-GH Designated Facility $100 Deductible per Emergency visit per Member. ENTERAL THERAPY(formula) Elemental formulas for malabsorption problems are covered at 80%. Pumps and supplies covered under Devices, Equipment and Supplies. FOOT CARE(ROUTINE) Not covered except in the presence of a non-related medical condition affecting the lower limbs. GROWTH HORMONES 0036900-008410 9 Covered. HEARING EXAMINATIONS AND HEARING AIDS Hearing examinations to determine hearing loss are covered subject to the office visit copayment. Hearing aids, including hearing aid examinations,are not covered. H011E HEALTH Covered in full. HOSPICE CARE Covered in full.Inpatient respite care is covered for a maximum of five(5)consecutive days per occurrence. INFERTILITY,STERILITY AND SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION Not covered INJECTABLES See Drugs-Outpatient. Injections necessary for travel are not covered. MANVUL4TIVE THERAPY Covered in accordance with GHC protocol up to a maximum of ten (10) visits per Member per calendar year, subject to the outpatient copayment. MATERN=CARE Covered,including prenatal and postpartum visits, subject to applicable inpatient/outpatient copayment. MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR HOME USE Not covered unless otherwise specified. MENTAL HEALTH CARE: • Outpatient Services Twenty (20) visits covered per Member per calendar year subject to $20 Copayment per individual/family/couple session and S10 per Member per group session; no coverage thereafter. Medication monitoring visits are subject to the office visit copayment. Inpatient Services 0036900-CO8410 10 Covered up to 12 days at 80% per Member per calendar year at a GH-approved mental health care facility when ^� authorized in advance by GH. NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS PKU supplements covered in full. See also Enteral and Parenteral therapy. OBESITY RELATED SERVICES Bariatric surgery and nutritional counseling covered subject to applicable copayment. Weight loss medications and related physician visits for medication monitoring are not covered. ON THE JOB INJURIES OR ILLNESSES(L&I,Workers'Compensation) Not covered. ONCOLOGY(Radiation therapy,Chemotherapy) Covered subject to the office visit copayment. OPTICAL CARE Routine eye examinations covered subject to the office visit copayment, once every 12 months. Contact lens after cataract surgery covered in full when in lieu of intraocular lens. Lenses,including contact lenses,and frames are not covered. ORGAIN TRANSPLANTS Covered up to a$200,000 lifetime benefit maximum subject to the applicable copayment. ORTHOPEDIC APPLIANCES See Devices,Equipment and Supplies. ORTHOTICS(arch supports) Not covered, including custom made shoe inserts. OSTOMY SUPPLIES See Devices,Equipment and Supplies. OUT OF AREA CARE 0036900-008410 11 Emergent/urgent care covered subject to$100 deductible. OUTPATIENT SURGERY Covered subject to the office visit Copayrnent. OXYGEN AND OXYGEN EQUIPMENT FOR HOME USE See Devices,Equipment and Supplies. PARENTERAL THERAPY(Total Parenteral Nutrition) Covered in full,including necessary equipment and supplies. PLASTIC&RECONSTRUCTIVE SERVICES(Plastic Surgery,Cosmetic Surgery) Plastic surgery covered to correct a congenital disease or anomaly, or injury or incidental to surgery, subject to the applicable copayment.Cosmetic surgery,including complications,is excluded. PODIATRIC CARE Covered subject to the applicable copayment for Medically Necessary foot care. Routine foot care is excluded. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION Covered,with no wait. PREGNANCY TERMINATION Involuntary/voluntary termination of pregnancy is covered subject to applicable copayments. PREVENTIVE CARE(Physicals,Immunizations,Pap Smears,Well-care,Mammograms) Covered subject to the office visit copayment when in accordance with well-care guidelines. Excluded are physicals for travel,employment, insurance, license,etc. PROSTHETIC DEVICES See Devices,Equipment and Supplies. REHABILITATION SERVICES 0036900-CO8410 12 • Inpatient physical, occupational and restorative speech therapy services combined, including services for "1 neurodevelopmentally disabled children age six (6) and under are covered up to 60 days per condition per calendar year. Covered subject to the inpatient Copayment. • Outpatient physical, occupational and restorative speech therapy services combined, including services for neurodevelopmentally disabled children age six (6) and under are covered up to 60 visits per condition per calendar year Covered subject to the office visit Copayment. SKILLED NURSING FACILITY(SNF) Covered up to thirty(30)days per condition per Member. STERILIZATION(Vasectomy,Tubal Ligation) Not covered. TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT(TMJ)SERVICES: • Inpatient and outpatient TMJ services when Medically Necessary and authorized by GH. $1,000 maximum per Member per calendar year • Lifetime Maximum Benefit $5,000 per Member TOBACCO CESSATION • Individual/Group Sessions Covered at 100%of the total charges. • Nicotine replacement therapy Covered subject to the Outpatient Prescription Drug Copayment for each(30) day supply or less of a prescription or refill when provided at GH Facilities and prescribed by a GHP Provider. 0036900-CO8410 13 Enrollment/Eligibility Requirements Effective Date of Enrollment. a. Provided application is made as set forth in Section IX.A.L, enrollment for a newly eligible Subscriber and listed Dependents is effective on the date of hire. Enrollment for a properly enrolled newly dependent person,other than a newborn or adoptive child, is effective the first(1st)of the month following application. Provided newborns are enrolled as specified in Section DC.A.I.b.,enrollment is effective from the date of birth. For adoptive children,enrollment is effective from the date that the adoptive child is placed with the Subscriber for the purpose of adoption and the Subscriber has assumed financial responsibility for the medical expenses of the child. b. Persons Hospitalized on Effective Date. Members who are admitted to an inpatient facility prior to their enrollment under this Agreement, and who do not have coverage under another Agreement, will be covered beginning on their effective date,provided the condition for which they have been admitted is a Covered Service. The Member will be transferred to a GH Facility when a GHP Provider, in consultation with the attending physician, determines that the Member is medically stable. If the Member refuses to transfer to a GH Facility, all further costs incurred during the hospitalization are the responsibility of the Member. Eligibility In order to be accepted for enrollment and continuing coverage under the Group Agreement,individuals must reside or work in the Service Area and meet all applicable requirements set forth below, except for temporary residency outside the Service area for purposes of attending school,court-ordered coverage for Dependents,or when approved in advance by GHC,other unique family arrangements. GHC has the right to verify eligibility. All non-urgent/emergent care must be provided at GH Facilities or GH Designated Facilities. 1. Subscribers. Bona fide employees and LEOFF H employees who are employed on a regularly scheduled basis of not less than twenty(20)hours per week sball be eligible for enrollment. Elected officials and council members shall be eligible for enrollment. LEOFF I employees will not be covered under this plan. 2. Family Dependents.The Subscriber may enroll any of the following: a. The Subscriber's legal spouse; b. Unmarried dependent children who are under the age of twenty-one (21), provided they reside regularly with the Subscriber or are chiefly dependent on the Subscriber for support and maintenance,provided proof of such dependency is furnished to GHC. "Children" means the children of the Subscriber including adopted children, stepchildren, foster children, children for whom the Subscriber has a qualified court order to provide coverage, and any other children for whom the Subscriber is the legal guardian. c. Enrollment may be extended past the limiting age for an unmarried person enrolled as a Family Dependent on his/her twenty-first(21st)birthday if: i. the Dependent is a full-time registered student at an accredited secondary school, college,or university and under the age of twenty-three(23);or 0036900-008410 14 ii. the Dependent is totally incapable of self-sustaining employment because of a developmental disability r"1 or a physical handicap incurred prior to attainment of the limiting age as set forth in 2.b. (above), or prior to attainment of the student limiting age as set forth in 2.c.(above), and is chiefly dependent upon the Subscriber for support and maintenance. Enrollment for such a Dependent may be continued for the duration of the continuous total incapacity, provided enrollment does not terminate for any other reason. Medical proof of incapacity and proof of financial dependency must be furnished to the GH upon request, but not more frequently than annually after the two (2) year period following the Dependent's attainment of the limiting age. d. Dependents of LEOFF I employees are eligible for coverage under this contract. e. Temporary Coverage for Ineligible Newborns. A child born to a covered Member who does not otherwise qualify as an eligible dependent as set forth in this section will be entitled to the benefits set forth in Section X. from birth through three (3) weeks of age. After three (3) weeks of age, no benefits are available unless the newborn child qualifies as a dependent and is enrolled under this Agreement. All contract provisions, limitations, and exclusions will apply except Section IV. Continuation of Coverage, Conversion,and Transfer. In regard to temporary coverage,continuation of coverage benefits set forth in Section IV.will not apply. Continuation of Enrollment While on a group approved leave of absence the Subscriber and listed Dependents can continue to be covered under this Agreement, provided they remain eligible for coverage, such leave is in compliance with the employees established leave of absence policy consistently applied to all employees, the employer's leave policy is in compliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act when applicable,and the employer or Group continues to remit premiums for the Subscriber and Dependents to the Cooperative. Ineligible Persons. GHC reserves the right to refuse enrollment to any person whose coverage under the Group Agreement or any other Medical Coverage Agreement issued by Group Health Cooperative has been terminated for cause. 0036900-008410 15 Section I. Definitions /^ AGREEMENT: This Medical Coverage Agreement, including the Schedule of Benefits, EnrollmentlElgibiliry Requirements,Premiums Schedule, Allowances Schedule, Service Area Map, and Medicare endorsements. ALLOWANCE: The maximum amount payable by GH for certain Covered Services under this Agreement,as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. COINSURANCE: An amount the Member is required to pay for Covered Services received under this Agreement, which is a percentage of the Allowance for such services,as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. COPAYMENT: The specific dollar amount required to be paid by a Member for certain Covered Services under this Agreement as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. COVERED SERVICES: The services and benefits to which a Member is entitled under this Agreement. DEDUCTIBLE: A specific maximum amount paid by a Member for certain Covered Services before benefits are payable under this Agreement. The applicable Deductible amounts are set forth in the Allowances Schedule. EMERGENCY: The sudden,unexpected onset of a medical condition that in the reasonable judgment of a prudent person is of such a nature that failure to render immediate care by a licensed medical provider would place the Member's life in danger,or cause serious impairment to the Member's health. FAMILY DEPENDENT: Any member of a Subscriber's family who meets all applicable eligibility requirements, is enrolled hereunder,and for whom the premiums prescribed in the Premiums Schedule have been paid. FAMILY UNIT: A Subscriber and all his/her Family Dependents. FEE SCHEDULE: A fee-for-service schedule adopted by GHC, setting forth the fees for medical and hospital services not covered by a GHC prepayment agreement. GH MEDICARE PLAN: A plan of coverage for persons enrolled in Medicare Part A(hospital insurance)and Part B(medical insurance). GH DESIGNATED FACILITY: A facility, not including a GH Facility, which the GHC Board of Trustees has specified to provide health care services to its Members. (See Service Area Map.) Designated Facilities may be changed by GH upon appropriate notice. GH FACILITY: A hospital or medical center owned and operated by Group Health Cooperative. (See Service Area Map.) GH PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER: A provider who is employed by or contracted with Group Health Permanente or GHC to provide primary care services to Members and is selected by each Member to provide or arrange for the provision of all non-emergent Covered Services, except for services set forth in this Agreement which a Member can access without referral. Primary Care Providers must be capable of and licensed to provide the majority of primary health care services required by each Member. GHP PROVIDER: The Medical Staff, Clinic Associate Staff, and allied health professionals employed by GHC, or Group Health Permanente, and any other health care professional with whom GHC has contracted to provide health care services to persons enrolled under this Agreement, and who at such time is providing services which have been authorized in advance by GHC, including, but not limited to, podiatrists, nurses, physician assistants, social workers, optometrists, psychologists, physical therapists and other professionals engaged in the delivery of healthcare services who are licensed or certified to practice in accordance with Title 18 RCW. GROUP: An employer, union, welfare trust, or bona-fide association which has entered into a Group Medical /^ Coverage Agreement with GHC. 0036900-008410 16 GROUP HEALTH PERMANENTE(GHP): A professional corporation that employs the former members of the .� medical staffs of Group Health Cooperative and Group Health Northwest. Group Health Permanente contracts with Group Health to oversee and provide medical services. HOSPITAL CARE: Those Medically Necessary services generally provided by acute general hospitals for admitted patients which a GHP Provider has prescribed, directed, or authorized. Hospital care does not include convalescent or custodial care which can, in the opinion of the GHP Provider, be provided by a nursing home or convalescent care center. MEDICAL CONDITION:A medical condition is a disease,an illness or an injury. MEDICALLY NECESSARY: Appropriate and necessary services,as determined by the GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee, according to generally accepted principles of good medical practice, which are rendered to a Member for the diagnosis,care or treatment of an illness or injury. Services provided under this Agreement must be medically necessary for benefits to be provided. The cost of services and supplies which are not medically necessary shall be the responsibility of the Member. Services and supplies must meet the following requirements: (a)are not solely for the convenience of the patient,his/her family,or the provider of the services or supplies;(b)are the most appropriate level of service or supply which can be safely provided to the patient; (c)are for the diagnosis or treatment of an actual or existing illness or injury unless being provided under GH's schedule for preventive services; (d) are not for recreational life-enhancing relaxation or palliative therapy(except for treatment of terminal conditions); (e) are not primarily for research and data accumulation; (0 are appropriate and consistent with the diagnosis and which, in accordance with accepted medical standards in the State of Washington, could not have been omitted without adversely affecting the patient's condition or the quality of health services rendered; (g)as to inpatient care,could not have been provided in a provider's office,the outpatient department of a hospital,or a non- residential facility without affecting the patient's condition or quality of health services rendered; and (h) are not experimental or investigational. The length and type of the treatment program and the frequency and modality of visits shall be determined by the GHC Medical Director,or his/her designee. MEDICARE: The federal health insurance program for the aged and disabled. MEMBER: Any Subscriber or Family Dependent covered by this Agreement. OPEN ENROLLMENT: An annual period, specified by the Group and GHC, during which an eligible person may apply for coverage. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION: A condition for which there has been diagnosis, treatment(including prescribed drugs),or medical advice within the three(3)month period prior to the effective date of coverage. The Pre-eristing Condition wait period will begin on the first day of coverage,or the first day of the waiting period if earlier. REFERRAL: A written temporary referral agreement authorized in advance by a GHP Provider and approved by GHC, which entitles a Member to receive Covered Services from a specified non-GH health care provider. Entitlement to such Services shall not exceed the limits of the Referral and is subject to all terms and conditions of the Referral and this Agreement. SERVICE AREA: Western Washington Counties of Island,King, Kitsap, Lewis, Mason,Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom; Eastern Washington Counties of Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Kittitas, Spokane, Walla Walla, Whitman, and Yakima counties;Idaho Counties of Kootenai and Latah; and any other areas designated by GH. (See Service Area Map.) SKILLED HOME HEALTH CARE: Reasonable and necessary care for the treatment of an illness or injury which requires the skill of a nurse or therapist, based on the complexity of the service and the condition of the patient,and which is performed directly by an appropriately licensed professional provider. STOP LOSS: The maximum amount of Copayments,and expenses incurred and paid, during the calendar year for Covered Services received by the Subscriber and his/her Family Dependents within the same calendar year. The Stop Loss amount is set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 0036900-CO8410 17 SUBSCRIBER: A person employed by or belonging to the Group who meets all applicable eligibility !� requirements, is enrolled hereunder, and for whom the premiums specified in the Premiums Schedule have been paid. URGENT CONDITION: The sudden, unexpected onset of a medical condition that is of sufficient severity to require medical treatment within twenty-four(24)hours of its onset. USUgL,CUSTOMARY,AND REASONABLE: A term used to define the level of benefits which are payable by GHC when expenses are incurred from a non-GH physician or provider. Expenses are considered Usual, Customary, and Reasonable if (1) the charges are consistent with those normally charged by the provider or organization for the same services or supplies; and(2)the charges are within the general range of charges made by other providers in the same geographical area for the same service or supplies. Section II.Premiums, Fees, and Copayments A. MONTHLY PREMIUMS PAYMENTS. The Group shall submit to GHC for each Member the monthly premiums set forth in the current Premiums Schedule and a verification of enrollment, on or before the due date,subject to a grace period of ten(10)days. Premiums are subject to change by GHC upon thirty(30)days written notice. In the event the group increases enrollment at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more through acquisition or merger,GHC reserves the right to require re-rating of the group. B. COPAYMENTS AND COINSURANCE. 1. Copayments. At the time of service, Members shall be required to pay Copayments as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Failure to pay for services and/or Copayments at the time of service may result in a billing fee.Failure to cancel a scheduled appointment at least 24 hours prior to the appointment may result in a billing for the value of the service. Payment of a Copayment does not exclude the possibility of an additional billing if the service is determined to be a non-Covered Service. Total out-of-pocket Copayment expenses incurred during the same calendar year shall not exceed the aggregate maximum amount (Stop Loss) as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Those Copayment categories which apply toward the aggregate maximum amount are set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 2. Coinsurance. Members shall be required to pay Coinsurance for certain Covered Services as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. C. SUBSCRIBER'S LIABILITY. The Subscriber is liable for (1) payment to the Group of his/her contribution toward the monthly premiums, if any; (2) payment to the Cooperative of Copayments and/or Coinsurance amounts for Covered Services provided to the Subscriber and his/her Family Dependents, as set forth in the Allowances Schedule; and (3) payment to the Cooperative of any fees charged for non-Covered Services provided to the Subscriber and his/her Family Dependents,at the time of service. Payment of an amount billed and any applicable billing fee must be received within thirty (30) days of the billing date.Amounts paid for billing fees do not apply toward the Stop Loss. D. SELF-PAYMENTS DURING A STRIKE, LOCK-OUT, OR OTHER LABOR DISPUTE.In the event of suspension or termination of employee compensation due to a strike, lock-out, or-other labor dispute, a Subscriber may continue uninterrupted coverage under this Agreement through payment of monthly premiums directly to the Group.Coverage may be continued for the lesser of the term of the strike,lock-out,or other labor dispute, or for six(6)months after the cessation of work. 0036900-008410 18 If the Group Agreement is no longer available,the Subscriber shall have the opportimity to apply for individual Group Conversion or, if applicable, continuation coverage (see Section IV.), or an Individual and Family Medical Coverage Agreement at the duly approved rates. THE GROUP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYING EACH AFFECTED SUBSCRIBER OF HIS/HER RIGHTS OF SELF-PAYMENT UNDER THIS PROVISION. Section III. Termination A. TERMINATION OF ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be terminated in the following circumstances: 1. Termination on Notice. This is a guaranteed renewable contract and cannot be terminated without the mutual approval of each of the parties except as set forth below(subsection 2.and 3.). 2. Nonpayment.Failure to make any monthly premiums payment or contribution in accordance with Section II.A.shall result in termination of this Agreement as of the due date. 3. Misrepresentation to Obtain Insurance. Group Health Cooperative may terminate this Agreement upon written notice in the event of material misrepresentation, fraud, or omission of information in order to obtain Group Coverage. 4. The Group may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty(30)days written notice to GHC. 5. Withdrawal or Cessation of Services. a. GHC may determine to withdraw from a service area or from a segment of its service area after GHC has demonstrated to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner that GHC's clinical, financial, or "1 administrative capacity to service the covered members would be exceeded b. GHC may determine to cease to offer the plan and replace the plan with another plan offered to all covered persons within that line of business that includes all of the health care services covered under the replaced plan and does not significantly limit access to the services covered under the replaced plan. GHC may also allow unrestricted conversion to a fully comparable product. GHC will provide written notice to each covered person of the discontinuation or nourenewal of the plan at least 90 days prior to discontinuation. B. TERMINATION OF SPECIFIC MEMBERS. This Agreement may be terminated as to a speck Member for any of the following reasons: 1. Loss of Eligibility.If a Member no longer meets the eligibility requirements set forth in Section IX.B., and is not enrolled for continuation coverage as described in Section N.A.,coverage under this Agreement will terminate at the end of the month during which loss of eligibility occurs, unless otherwise specified by the Group as set forth in the.Enrollment/Eligibility Requirements. 2. For Cause.Coverage of a Member may be terminated upon written notice for: a. Material misrepresentation, fraud, or omission of information in order to obtain coverage. This includes failure to answer fully and correctly all questions contained in the application forms. In such event, the Cooperative may, within two (2)years from the date of the application,refuse to cover any service for a condition(s) to which such question was relevant, or may nonrenew or cancel the Membees coverage upon ten(10)working days written notice. I b. Permitting the use of a GHC identification card by another person, or using another person's identification card to obtain care to which one is not entitled. 0036900-008410 19 c. Failure to comply with the rules and regulations of the Cooperative. d. Nonpayment of charges as set forth in Section II.C. 3. Nonpayment of premiums or contribution for a specific Member by the Group. 4. In no event will a Member be terminated solely on the basis of their physical or mental condition provided they meet all other eligibility requirements set forth in this Agreement. 5. ' The Member may appeal the termination decision through GHC's grievance process as set forth in Section VII. C. PERSONS HOSPITALIZED ON THE DATE OF TERMINATION. A Member who is a registered bed patient receiving Covered Services in a GH Facility or GH Designated Facility on the date of termination shall continue to be eligible for Covered Services for the condition for which the Member was hospitalized, until discharge from the facility. This continued coverage will also apply to a Member hospitalized in a non-GH Designated Facility as a result of an Emergency or Referral as set forth in Section XI.B.1. D. SERVICES PROVIDED AFTER TERMINATION.Any services provided by GHC after the effective date of termination (except those services covered under Section M.C.) shall be charged according to the Fee Schedule.The Subscriber shall be liable for payment of all such charges for services provided to the Subscriber and all Family Dependents. A certificate of creditable coverage will be issued automatically upon termination of coverage, and may also be obtained upon request. Section IV. Continuation Coveraee. Conversion, and Transfer A. CONTINUATION COVERAGE UNDER FEDERAL LAW. This subsection A.only applies to employer groups who must offer continuation coverage under the applicable provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA"), as amended,and only applies to grant continuation of coverage rights to the extent required by federal law. Upon loss of eligibility, continuation of Group coverage may be available to a Member for a limited time after the Member would otherwise lose eligibility, if required by the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and amendments thereto (collectively "COBRA"). The, Group shall inform Members of COBRA election process and how much the Member will be required to pay directly to the Group. B. GHC GROUP CONVERSION PLAN. 1. Eligibility.Any Subscriber or Family Dependent is entitled to convert to GHC's Group Conversion Plan if his/her coverage under this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than cause. (See Section III.B.2.) Following termination of marriage or death of the Subscriber, all Family Dependents are entitled to make such a conversion. 2. Application. Application for conversion must be made within thirty-one (31) days following termination under this Agreement. Coverage under the GHC Group Conversion Plan is subject to all terms and conditions of such plan, including premiums payment.A physical examination or statement of health is not required for enrollment in the Group Conversion Plan. Section V. Coordination of Benefits A. BENEFITS SUBJECT TO THIS PROVISION: As described in subsection H., benefits provided under this Agreement do not duplicate other group coverage for medical care or treatment. If a Member is entitled to r- receive benefits or services for medical care or treatment under another individual, group or governmental plan, GHC may recover the reasonable cash value of services provided under this Agreement so that benefits and 0036900-008410 20 services under all plans do not exceed one hundred percent(100%) of allowable expenses (except copayments, r^\ coinsurances and deductibles)as set forth in this section. B. PLAN:The definition of a"Plan"includes the following sources of benefits or services: I. Group or blanket disability insurance policies and health care service contractor and health maintenance organization group agreements, issued by insurers,health care service contractors and health maintenance organizations; 2. Labor-management trusteed plans, labor organization plans, employer organization plans or employee benefit organization plans; 3. Governmental programs;and 4. Coverage required or provided by any statute.The tetra"Plan"shall be construed separately with respect to each policy, agreement or other arrangement for benefits or services, and separately with respect to the respective portions of any such policy, agreement or other arrangement which do and which do not reserve the right to take the benefits or services of other policies, agreements or other arrangements into consideration in determining benefits. C. ALLOWABLE EXPENSE: "Allowable Expense" means any necessary, reasonable and customary items of expense at least a portion of which is covered under at least one of the Plans covering the person for whom the claim is made.When a Plan provides benefits in the form of services rather than cash payments, the reasonable cash value of each service rendered shall be considered as both an Allowable Expense and a benefit paid. D. CLAIM DETERMINATION PERIOD: "Claim Determination Period" means a period beginning with any January 1 and ending with the next following December 31 except that the first Claim Determination Period with respect to any person shall begin on the effective date of coverage under this Agreement with respect to "1 such person and end on the.following December 31. In no event will a Claim Determination Period for any person extend beyond the last day on which such a person is covered under this Agreement. E. RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND RELEASE INFORMATION: For the purpose of determining the applicability of and implementing this provision and any provision of similar purpose in any other Plan, the Cooperative may,with such consent as may be necessary,release to or obtain from any other insurer, organization or person any information,with respect to any person which the insurer considers necessary for such purpose.Any person claiming benefits under this Agreement shall fitmish to the Cooperative the information necessary.for.such purpose. F. FACILITY OF PAYMENT: Whenever coverage which should have been provided under this Agreement in accordance with this provision has been provided or paid for under any other Plan, the Cooperative shall have the right, exercisable alone and in its sole discretion, to pay over to any Plan making such other payments any amounts it shall determine to be wan-anted in order to satisfy the intent of this provision, and amounts so paid shall be considered to be coverage or benefits paid under this Agreement and, to the extent of such payments, the Cooperative shall be fully discharged from liability under this Agreement. G. RIGHT OF RECOVERY: Whenever benefits have been provided by the Cooperative with respect to Allowable Expenses in total amount, at any time, in excess of the maximum amount of payment necessary ai that time to satisfy the intent of this provision, the Cooperative shall have the right to recover the reasonable cash value of such benefits, to the extent of such excess, from one or more of the following, as the Cooperative shall determine: any persons to or for or with respect to whom such benefits were provided, any other insurers, any service plans or any other organization or other Plans. H. EFFECT ON BENEFITS: 0036900-CO8410 21 1. This provision shall apply in determining the benefits for a person covered under this Agreement for a particular Claim Determination Period if, for the Allowable Expenses incurred as to such person during such period,the sum of: a. The reasonable cash value of the benefits that would be provided under the Agreement in the absence of this provision, and b. The benefits that would be payable under all other Res in the absence therein or provisions of similar purpose to this provision would exceed such Allowable Expenses. 2. As to any Claim Determination Period with respect to which this provision is applicable, the reasonable cash value of the benefits prodded under this Agreement in the absence of this provision for the Allowable Expenses incurred as to such person during such Claim Determination Period shall be reduced to the extent necessary so that the sum of the reasonable cash value of benefits and all benefits payable for such Allowable Expenses under all other Plans, except as provided in subparagraph(3) of this Section, shall not exceed the total of such Allowable Expenses. Benefits payable under another Plan include benefits that would have been payable had a claim been duly made therefor. In determining liability under this paragraph,.the Plan is not required, and will not take into consideration, deductibles, copayments, or other cost-sharing provisions. 3. If a. another Plan which is involved in subparagraph (2) of this Section and which contains a provision coordinating its benefits with those of this Agreement would, according to its rules, determine its benefits after the benefits of this Plan have been determined;and b. the rules set forth in subparagraph (4) of this Section would require this Agreement to determine its benefits before such other Plan,then the benefits of such other Plan will be ignored for the purposes of determining the benefits under this Agreement. i 4. For the purposes of subparagraph (3) of this Section, the rules establishing the order of benefit determination are: a. The benefits of a Plan which covers the person on whose expenses a claim is based other than as a dependent shall be determined before the benefits of a Plan which covers such person as a dependent. b. ' Iii the case that a dependent is covered under both parents'medical Plan,the benefits of the Plan of the parent whose birthday falls earlier in the year are determined before those of the Plan of a parent whose birthday falls later in the year.This birthdate will refer only to the month and day,not the year in which a person was bom. If both parents have the same'birthday, the benefits of the Plan which covered the parent longer are determined before those that covered the other parent for a shorter period of time,except that in the case of a person for whom claim is made as a dependent child, i, when the parents are separated or divorced and the parent with custody of the child has not remarried, the benefits of a Plan which covers the child as a dependent of the parent with custody of the child will be determined before the benefits of a Plan which covers the child as a dependent of the parent without custody;and ii. when the parents are divorced and the parent with custody of the child has remarried, the benefits of a Plan which covers the child as a dependent of the parent with custody shall be determined before the benefits of a Plan which covers that child as a dependent of the stepparent, and the benefits of a Plan which covers that child as a dependent of the stepparent will be determined before the benefits of a Plan which covers that child as a dependent of the parent without custody. Notwithstanding items (i) and (il) above, if there is a court decree which would otherwise establish financial responsibility for the medical, dental or other health care expenses with respect to the child, 0036900-CO8410 22 the benefits of a Plan which covers the child as a dependent of the parent with such financial �1 responsibility shall be determined before the benefits of any other Plan which cover the child as a dependent child. c. When rules (a) and(b)do not establish an order of benefit determination, the benefits of a Plan which has covered the person on whose expenses claim is based for the longer period of time shall be determined before the benefits of-vftan which has covered such person the shorter period of time, provided that: i. The benefits of a Plan covering the person on whose expenses claim is based as a laid off or retired employee, or dependent of such person shall be determined after the benefits of any other Plan covering such person as an employee, other than a laid off or retired employee, or dependent of such person;and ii. If either Plan does not have a provision regarding laid off or retired employees, which results in each Plan determining its benefits after the other,then the provisions of(i)of this subsection shall not apply. d. If none of the above rules determines the order of benefits, the benefits of the Plan which covered an employee or Subscriber for the longer period of time shall be determined before those of the Plan which covered that person for the shorter time period. 5. When this provision operates to reduce the total amount of benefits otherwise to be provided to a person covered under this Agreement during any Claim Determination Period, the reasonable cash value of each benefit that would be provided in the absence of this provision shall be reduced proportionately, and such reduced amount shall be charged against any applicable benefit limit of this Agreement. I. EFFECT OF MEDICARE (for those Members residing outside the Group Health Medicare + Choice service area): In order to be eligible for coverage under this Agreement,Members entitled to or eligible for Medicare benefits must enroll in and maintain both Medicare Parts A and B. Failure to do so upon the effective date of Medicare eligibility will result in termination of coverage under this employer group plan. Except for employees/dependents qualifying under Tefra working-aged as set forth in Section XI.D.1., benefits payable under this Agreement will be paid as secondary to payment under Title XVIII,Medicare Parts A and B. 1. When Group Health renders care to a GHC Member who is entitled to or eligible for Medicare benefits, and Medicare is deemed to be the primary bill payor under Medicare secondary payor guidelines and regulations,GHC will seek Medicare reimbursement for all Medicare covered services. 2. Coverage under Section X. is limited to those services for which Medicare is NOT the primary bill payor, except as specifically provided under Section X.A.Hospital Care. Section VI. Subrogation "Injured person" under this section means a Member covered by this Agreement who sustains compensable injury. "GHC's medical expenses" means the expense incurred and the reasonable value of the services provided by the Cooperative for the care or treatment of the injury sustained. If the injured person was injured by an act or omission of a third party giving rise to a claim of legal liability against the third parry, GHC shall have the right to recover from the third party GHC's medical expenses. This right is commonly referred to as "subrogation."GHC shall be subrogated to and may enforce all rights of the injured person to the extent of GHC's medical expenses. GHC's equitable and contractual rights of subrogation are limited(only as required)by Washington law. 0036900-008410 23 The injured person and his or her agents must cooperate fully with GHC in its efforts to collect GHC's medical expenses. This cooperation shall include supplying GHC with information about any defendants and/or insurers related to the injured person's claim.The injured person and his or her agents shall permit GHC, at GHC's option,to associate with the injured party or to intervene in any action filed against any third party. The injured person and his or her agents shall do nothing to prejudice GHC's subrogation rights. The injured person shall not settle a claim without protecting GHC's interest. GHC's right of subrogation shall be limited to the excess of the amount required to fully compensate the injured person for the loss sustained. Full compensation shall be measured on an objective, case-by-case basis. If the Member fails to cooperate fully with GHC in recovery of medical expenses as described above,the Member shall be responsible for reimbursing GHC for such medical expenses. GHC shall not pay any attorney's fees or collection costs to attorneys representing the injured person where it has retained its own legal counsel or acts on its own behalf to represent its interests and unless there is a written fee agreement signed by GHC prior to any collection efforts.When reasonable collection costs have been incurred with GHC's prior written agreement, to recover GHC's medical expenses, there shall be an equitable apportionment of such collection costs between GHC and the injured person subject to a maximum responsibility of GHC equal to one-third of the amount recovered on behalf of GHC. Section VII. Grievance/Appeal Procedures GHC is committed to providing a process to assist Members to resolve issues regarding medical and business service. These issues include appeals of organizational decisions and formal complaints (grievances). GHC will record research, and respond in a timely manner to each submitted concern.A concern should initially be registered at the location where the concern occurred, which is often the facility in which the Member receives his or her primary medical care. The personnel in this facility will attempt to resolve the issue. If the Member is not satisfied, he or she may contact the organizational department responsible for handling Member concerns. This staff will research the issue,determine the outcome, and respond to the Member. This process may include physician review and/or management review. If GHC fails to grant or reject such request within thirty (30) days after the request is made,the Member may proceed as if the complaint had been rejected. If the Member continues to be dissatisfied, he/she may appeal the decision to a grievance/appeals committee by submitting the appeal in writing:if the Member is located west of the mountains,to GHC's Appeals Department at the Riverton Operations Center,PO Box 34593, Seattle WA 98124-1593, or if the Member is located east of the mountains to Patient Relations Department, 5615 W. Sunset Highway, Spokane, WA 99224. If a delay would jeopardize the Member's life or materially jeopardize Elie Member's health, the Member can request an expedited appeal either orally or in writing by calling GHC's Appeal Department at (206) 901-7359 in wester Washington, or (509) 241-7809 in eastern Washington. ' A' Member, and/or the representative for the Member, shall have the opportunity to appear before a grievancelappeals committee.The committee is composed of a physician(s),GHC management personnel, and GHC consumers.If the Member is not satisfied with the committee's decision, the Member may submit his/her concern to non-binding mediation. The mediation will be conducted by a mediator,agreed upon by both the Member and GHC. Section VIII. Miscellaneous Provisions A. DISSENUNATION OF INFORMATION. The Group is responsible for disseminating to Subscribers written information concerning this Agreement which is provided by the Cooperative. B. IDENTIFICATION CARDS. The Cooperative will fiunish cards, for identification only, to all persons enrolled under this Agreement. C. AD>IINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT. GHC may adopt reasonable policies and procedures to help in the administration of this Agreement. Group Health Cooperative reserves the right to construe the provisions of this Medical Coverage Agreement, and to determine any and all questions pertaining to benefit entitlement and coverage. �^ D. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. Except as required by Washington state law, this Agreement may not be modified without agreement between both parties. 0036900-CO8410 24 No oral statement of any person shall modify or otherwise affect the benefits, limitations, and exclusions of this '\ Agreement, convey or void any coverage, increase or reduce any benefits under this Agreement or be used in the prosecution or defense of a claim under this Agreement. E. INDEMINMCATION. GHC agrees to indemnify and hold the Group harmless against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of GHC's failure,to perform or negligent performances of its express obligations under the Group Medical Coverage Agreement. GHC firrther agrees to indemnify and hold the Group harmless against claims, damages, losses or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, for injury or damage caused to any person which is the result of or is alleged to be the result of the failure to provide or the negligent provision of medical services or supplies specified under this contract by any health care provider who is employed by, is an agent of or who has a direct contractual relationship with GHC.Provided,however, that the Group notifies GHC in writing promptly of any such claims,that it will assist GHC(at GHC's expense) in the defense of same,and that GHC has the right to direct and arrange the defense of the case. The foregoing shall not in any way be construed as applying to any claim, demand or loss arising out of negligent acts or omissions of the Group,its agents, officers or employees, or failure by the Group to carry out any of its responsibilities under this Agreement. F. GOVERNING LAW. The Medical Coverage Agreement is entered into and governed by the laws of Washington State,except as otherwise pre-empted by ERISA and other Federal laws. G. GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL CLAUSE. If GHC has not received any necessary government approval by the date when notice is required under this Agreement, GHC will notify Group of any changes once governmental approval has been received. GHC may amend this Agreement by giving notice to group upon receipt of government approved rates, benefits, limitations, exclusions, or other provisions, in which case such rates, benefits, limitations, exclusions, or provisions will go into effect as of the anniversary date. All amendments are deemed accepted by group unless group gives GHC written notice of non-acceptance at least 30 days before the anniversary date, in which event this Agreement and all rights to services and other benefits terminate on the anniversary date. H. CONFIDENTIALITY. It is the policy of Group Health not to divulge any personal medical information except where required by law. Information from medical records of Members and information received from physicians, surgeons,.or hospitals incident to the doctor patient relationship shall be kept confidential and, except for such use as is reasonably necessary in the administration of this Agreement, may not be disclosed without the Member's consent Group Health Cooperative does not discriminate on the basis of physical or mental handicaps in its employment practices and services. Section IX. Enrollment Schedule A. ENROLLMENT 1. Application for Enrollment. Application for enrollment shall be made on an application form fumished and approved by GHC. No person shall be enrolled or premiums accepted until this completed application has been received and approved by GHC. The Group is responsible for submitting completed application forms to GHC. a. Special Enrollment Periods for New Dependents. GHC will allow special enrollment periods for persons who (a) initially declined enrollment when newly eligible because such persons had another health care plan available through Group or other insurance coverage and have had such other coverage terminated due to cessation of employer contributions, exhaustion of COBRA continuation coverage, or loss of eligibility except for loss of eligibility for cause (GHC or Group may require that when initially offered coverage such persons submitted a written statement declining because of other coverage); or(b) are eligible to be Subscribers and have acquired persons eligible to be Family Dependents by events of 0036900-CO8410 25 birth,marriage,adoption or placement for adoption,or are the Family Dependents of such eligible person or of a Subscriber and are acquired by such events. b. Newly Eligible Persons. Newly eligible Subscribers may make written application for enrollment to the Group within thirty-one (31) days of eligibility. If the Subscriber wishes to enroll his/her eligible Dependents,application must be made during this same thirty-one(31)day period. Written application for enrollment for a newly dependent person, other than a newborn or newborn adopted child,must be made to the Group within thirty-one (31) days after the dependency occurs and will be subject to the Pre-existing Condition exclusion set forth in Section XI.A. A Subscriber's newborn child shall be automatically enrolled when born: i. at a GH Facility or GH Designated Facility;or ii. at a non-GH Facility due to an Emergency, provided that all the requirements of Section X.L. of this Agreement are met, including notification of GH by way of the GH Notification Line within twenty-four(24)hours following inpatient admission, or as soon thereafter as medically possible. GHC shall provide notice of such enrollment to the Subscriber and the Group. It is the Subscriber's responsibility to complete and submit a revised application form to the Group. If the Subscriber does not want the newborn child enrolled, he/she must notify GHC within sixty (60) days of the date of birth. If subsequent to enrollment it is discovered that the newborn child is not eligible or if the Group does not initiate premiums payments on or before sixty(60)days from the date of birth,GHC shall disenroll the child retroactive to the effective date of coverage. Children who are born in a non-GH Facility on a nonemergency basis will not be automatically enrolled.In the event there is a change in the monthly premiums payment as a result of the addition of a newborn child,the Subscriber must make written application for enrollment to the Group within sixty (60)days following the date of birth. In the event there is a change in the monthly premiums payment as a result of the addition of an adoptive child, including adopted newborns, the Subscriber must make written application for enrollment within sixty (60) days from the day that the child is placed with the Subscriber for the purpose of adoption and the Subscriber assumes financial responsibility for the medical expenses of the child. c. If the spouse and/or eligible Family Dependents of a GHC Subscriber loses eligibility under a comparable medical plan they may be added to the GHC Subscriber's plan. There must be no more than a three (3) month lapse of coverage between plans, and application must be made prior to the expiration of this three(3)month period. d. Open Enrollment. A person not enrolled as a Subscriber or Family Dependent when newly eligible, as described above,may make written application during the Group's Open Enrollment period. 2. Limitation on Enrollment. This Agreement will be open for application as set forth in Section 1X.A.1. GHC may limit enrollment, establish quotas, or set priorities for acceptance of new applications if it determines that its capacity, in relation to its total enrollment, is not adequate to provide services to additional persons. 3. Effective Date of Services and Benefits. Services provided to Members, including newborns and adoptive children, are subject to all terms and conditions of the Group Agreement including the requirement that all services must be received at a GH or GH Designated Facility under the medical management of a GH physician unless the Member has been Referred by a GH physician or has received Emergency services according to Section X.L. 0036900-CO8410 26 B. PERSONS ENTITLED TO, OR ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE MEDICARE. Except as defined by federal ^+ regulations (i.e., TEFRA), all Members entitled to, or eligible to purchase Medicare must transfer to the GHC Medicare Plan upon such entitlement or eligibility. A condition of coverage under the GHC Medicare Plan requires that a Member be continuously fully qualified and enrolled for the hospital (Part A) and medical(Part B) benefits, available from the Social Security Administration, and sign any papers that may be required by GHC or Medicare. All applicable provisions of the GHC Medicare Plan are fully set forth in the Medicare Endorsement(s)attached to this Agreement(if applicable). Subscribers and covered dependents who are eligible for Medicare (as set forth below)must, effective the date that Medicare would become the primary payor, enroll in Medicare Parts A&B, and must participate in GHC's medicare plan. For purposes of this section, an individual shall be deemed eligible for Medicare when he or she has the option to receive Part A Medicare benefits, irrespective of whether the individual elects to enroll in Part B coverage under the federal regulations. C. PERSONS AGE SIXTY-FIVE (65) OR OLDER WHO ARE NOT ENTITLED TO, OR ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE MEDICARE. Upon reaching age sixty-five (65), if not entitled to, or eligible to purchase Medicare,Members may continue coverage under this Agreement upon payment of the applicable premiums as set forth in the Premiums Schedule. Section X. Schedule Of Benefits Subject to all provisions of this Group Medical Coverage Agreement, including the Allowances Schedule, Members are entitled to receive the benefits and services that are Medically Necessary for the treatment of a Medical Condition as determined by GHC's Medical Director or his/her designee, and as described in this Schedule of Benefits. A. HOSPITAL CARE ., Hospital care is provided when approved by a GHP Provider,limited to the following services: 1. Room and board,including private room when prescribed,and general nursing services. 2. Hospital services(including use of operating room,anesthesia,oxygen,x-ray, laboratory,and radiotherapy services). 3. As a cost-effective alternative in lieu of otherwise covered, Medically Necessary hospitalization or other covered,Medically Necessary institutional care,alternative care arrangements may be covered. Alternative care arrangements in lieu of covered hospital or other institutional care must be determined appropriate and Medically Necessary based upon the patient's medical condition. Such determination of medical appropriateness and necessity,and authorization of coverage must be made in advance by GHC. For additional coverage,see Section X.E.Skilled Home Health Care Services and Section X.F. Hospice. 4. Drugs and medications which are listed as covered in the GHC Drug Formulary(approved drug list). 5. Special duty nursing(when prescribed as Medically Necessary). If a Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Facility, GHC reserves the right to require transfer of the Member to a GHC Facility, upon consultation with a GHP Provider. If the Member refuses to transfer to a GH Facility, all further costs incurred during the hospitalization are the responsibility of the Member. B. MEDICAL AND SURGICAL C.ARE Medical and surgical services are provided,limited to the following,when prescribed by a GHP Provider: 1. Surgical services. 0036900-CO8410 27 2. Diagnostic x-ray,nuclear medicine,ultrasound, and laboratory services. 3. Family planning counseling services. 4. Hearing examinations to determine hearing loss. 5. Blood derivatives,blood processing fees and the administration of blood and blood derivatives. The cost of blood is not covered. 6. Preventative services for health maintenance, including routine mammography screening, physical examinations in accordance with criteria established by GHC for the detection of disease, and immunizations and vaccinations which are listed as covered in the GHC Drug Formulary (approved drug list). A fee may be charged for health education programs. 7. Radiation therapy services. 8. The following services are covered by GHC when,performed by a GHP Provider or GH oral surgeon: reduction of a fracture or dislocation of the jaw or facial bones; excision of tumors or non-dental cysts of the jaw,cheeks,lips,tongue,gums,roof and floor of the mouth;and incision of salivary glands and ducts. 9. Medically Necessary implants, which are not experimental or investigational, are covered as determined by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Excluded are internally implanted insulin pumps, artificial hearts,artificial larynx,and any other implantable device that has not been approved by GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee. 10. Respiratory therapy. 11. Dietary formula for the treatment of phenylketonuria (PKU) when determined Medically Necessary by GHCs Medical Director, or his/her designee. Coverage for this formula is not subject to a Pre-existing Conditions waiting period,if any. Outpatient total parenteral nutritional therapy, when Medically Necessary and in accordance with medical criteria as established by GHC. Outpatient elemental formulas for malabsorption are covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Formulas for access problems are excluded. Equipment and supplies for the administration of enteral therapy is covered under Devices,Equipment and Supplies. Dietary formulas, oral nutritional supplements and special diets, except for treatment of phenylketonuria (PKU)and total parenteral and enteral nutritional therapy as set forth above,are excluded. 12. Visits by GHP Providers(including consultations and second opinions by a GHP Provider) in the hospital or office. 13. Routine eye examinations and refractions are covered, limited to once every twelve (12) months, except when Medically Necessary. Services for routine eye examinations must be received at a GH Facility and in accordance with GHC medical criteria in order to be covered. Evaluations and surgical procedures to correct refractions which are not related to eye pathology are not covered. Complications related to such surgery are also excluded. Contact lens fittings and related examinations are not covered except as set forth below. Contact lens examinations and fittings for eye pathology are provided in full. When dispensed through GH Facilities, one contact lens per diseased eye in lieu of an intraocular lens, including exam and fitting, is covered for Members following cataract surgery performed by a GHP Provider, provided the Member has been continuously covered by GHC since such surgery. Replacement of a covered contact lens will be provided 0036900-008410 28 only when needed due to change in the Member's medical condition but may be replaced only one time '1 within any twelve(12)month period. 14. Maternity care,including care for complications of pregnancy and prenatal and postpartum visits. Prenatal testing for the detection of congenital and heritable disorders when Medically Necessary as determined by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Genetic testing of non-Members for the detection of congenital and heritable disorders is excluded. Hospitalization and delivery services and voluntary (not medically indicated and non-therapeutic) termination of pregnancy are not covered unless indicated in the next paragraph of this section. Pregnancy will not be considered a pre-existing condition exclusion under this Agreement. Additional Maternitv Care Services Hospitalization and delivery, including home births for low risk pregnancies when approved in advance and provided by a GHP Provider,is covered. Voluntary(not medically indicated and nontherapeutic)or involuntary termination of pregnancy is covered. 15. Transplants. When authorized as medically appropriate by GHC's Medical Director or his/her designee, and in accordance with criteria established by the Cooperative, for heart, heart-lung, single lung, double lung, kidney, simultaneous pancreas/kidney, cornea,bone marrow, and liver transplants, as set forth in the Allowances Schedule;limited to the following: • evaluation testing to determine recipient candidacy; • transplantation, limited to costs for the surgery and hospitalization related to the transplant, and medications;and • follow-up services for specialty visits,re-hospitalization,and maintenance medications. High dose chemotherapy and stem cell (obtained from the peripheral blood or marrow as medically appropriate) support is covered when authorized as medically appropriate by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Inpatient expenses of the recipient and donor which are directly associated with the transplant procedure and hospitalization are subject to the Lifetime Benefit Maximum set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Expenses for medical services and supplies required in connection with the transplant, follow-up services for specialty visits, rehospitalization, and maintenance medications are not subject to the Lifetime Benefit Maximum. Transportation expenses,except as set forth under Section X.M. of this Agreement, and living expenses are excluded. Donor costs for a covered organ recipient axe covered, limited to procurement center fees,travel costs for a surgical team, excision fees, and matching tests. GHC shall exclude coverage for donor costs to the extent that the donor costs are reimbursable by the organ donor's insurance. Except for children who have been continuously enrolled at GHC since birth, coverage for all transplants and any related services, items, and drugs shall be excluded until such time as the Member has been continuously enrolled under this Agreement, or any prior GHC Medical Coverage Agreement, for twelve (12) consecutive months without any lapse in coverage, unless the Member requires a transplant as the result of a condition which had a sudden unexpected onset after the Member's effective date of coverage. 16. Self-referrals for manipulative therapy of the spine and extremities limited to one evaluation and ten(10) spinal manipulations only when provided by GHP Providers as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 0036900-CO8410 29 The Medical Necessity for manipulative therapy must meet GHC protocol. Excluded are services not included in GHC protocol, including,but not limited to, supportive care rendered primarily to maintain the /- level of correction already achieved, care rendered primarily for the convenience of the Member, care rendered on a non-acute,asymptomatic basis, or charges for office visits other than the initial evaluation. 17. Medical and surgical services and related hospital charges, including orthognathic (jaw) surgery for the treatment of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders, are covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule when determined to be Medically Necessary and referred in advance by GHC. Such disorders may exhibit themselves in the form of pain, infection, disease, difficulty in speaking, or difficulty in chewing or swallowing food. TMJ appliances are covered as set forth under orthopedic appliances(Section X.H.1.). Orthognathic(jaw) surgery, radiology services and TMJ specialist services, including fitting/adjustment of splints,is subject to the benefit limit set forth in the Allowances Schedule. The following services including related hospitalizations,are excluded regardless of origin or cause: • orthognathic(jaw)surgery in the absence of a TMJ diagnosis, • treatment for cosmetic purposes,and • all dental services(except as noted above),including orthodontic therapy. 18. When authorized as medically appropriate by GHCs Medical Director, or his/her designee, and in accordance with criteria established by the Cooperative, treatment of growth disorders by growth hormones. 19. Diabetic training and education. 20. Detoxification services for alcoholism and drug abuse. Coverage for acute chemical withdrawal is provided without prior approval. If a Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Designated Facility, coverage is subject to payment of the Deductible shown in the Allowances Schedule, and notification of GH by way of the GH Notification Line within twenty-four (24) hours following inpatient admission, or as soon thereafter as medically possible. Furthermore, if a Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Designated Facility, GHC reserves the right to require transfer of the Member to a GH Facility upon consultation with a GHP Provider. If the Member refuses transfer to a GH Facility, all further costs incurred during the hospitalization are the responsibility of the Member. For the purpose of this section, "acute chemical withdrawal' means withdrawal of alcohol and/or drugs from a person for whom consequences of abstinence are so severe as to require medical/nursing assistance in a hospital setting, and which is needed immediately to prevent serious impairment to the Member's health. 21. Routine circumcision,including newborn circumcision. 22. Nutritional counseling, bariatric surgery and related hospitalizations when GHC criteria are met for the treatment of obesity. All other services required (e.g., prescribing and monitoring of drugs, structured weight loss and/or exercise programs)are excluded. 23. Pre-existing Conditions are covered in the same manner as any other illness, except as provided under Section X.B.15.of this Agreement. 24. Skilled Nursing Facility care in a GH-approved skilled nursing facility up to a maximum of thirty(30)days per condition when full-time skilled nursing care is necessary in the opinion of the attending GHP Provider. 0036900-008410 30 When prescribed by a GHP Provider, such care may include board and room; general nursing care; drugs, biologicals, supplies, and equipment ordinarily provided or arranged by a skilled nursing facility; and short-term physical therapy,occupational therapy,and restorative speech therapy. Excluded from coverage are personal comfort items such as telephone and television; and rest cures, custodial,domiciliary or convalescent care. C. CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY TREATMENT Subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement, care is provided as set forth below at a GH Facility, GH Designated Facility, or GH-approved treatment facility, subject to the Benefit Period Allowance as described below and as shown in the Allowances Schedule. 1. Chemical Dependency Treatment Services. The GHC Medical Director or his/her designee shall make the final determination of the length and type of program and frequency of visits. For chemical dependency treatment services, Medical Necessity is defined as those services necessary to treat a chemical dependency condition that is having a clinically significant impact on an individual's emotional,social,medical,and/or occupational functioning. A. All alcoholism and/or drug abuse treatment services must be: (1) provided at a facility as described above and must be authorized in advance, except for acute chemical withdrawal as described in Section X.B.20.;and(2)deemed Medically Necessary as defined above by GHCs Medical Director or his/her designee. Chemical dependency treatment may include the following services received on an inpatient or outpatient basis: diagnostic evaluation and education, organized individual and group counseling, and prescription drugs and medicines(unless excluded under this Agreement). b. Court-ordered treatment shall be provided only if determined to be Medically Necessary by GHCs Medical Director or his/her designee. 2. Benefit Period and Benefit Period Allowance. a. Benefit Period. For the purpose of this section, "Benefit Period" shall mean a twenty-four (24) consecutive calendar month period during which the Member is eligible to receive covered chemical dependency treatment services as set forth in this section. The first Benefit Period shall begin on the first day the Member receives covered chemical dependency services and shall continue for twenty-four (24) consecutive calendar months, provided that coverage under this Agreement remains in force. All subsequent Benefit Periods thereafter will begin on the first day Covered Services are received after expiration of the previous twenty-four(24)month Benefit Period. b. Benefit Period Allowance.The maximum allowance available for any Benefit Period shall be the total of all chemical dependency benefits provided and payments made for chemical dependency treatment, not to exceed the Benefit Period Allowance shown in the Allowances Schedule during the Member's Benefit Period. Any Deductibles or Copaymeuts which may be bome by the Member under the terms of this Agreement shall not be applied toward the Benefit Period Allowance. D. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SERVICES are covered: 1. to correct a congenital disease or congenital anomaly as determined by a GHP Provider; or to correct a Medical Condition following an injury or incidental to surgery covered by GHC which has produced a major effect on the Membees appearance,provided: 0036900-008410 31 • the Member has been continuously enrolled with GHC since the date of such injury or surgery;and • when in the opinion of a GHP Provider, such services can reasonably be expected to correct the condition. In the case of a congenital condition which affects appearance,an anomaly will be considered to exist if the Member's appearance resulting from such condition is not within the range of normal human variation. Complications of noncovered surgical services are excluded. 2. for reconstructive surgery and associated procedures following a mastectomy, regardless of when the mastectomy was performed.Internal breast prostheses required incident to the surgery will be provided. A Member will be covered for all stages of reconstruction on the nondiseased breast to make it equivalent in size with the diseased breast after definitive reconstructive surgery on the diseased breast has been performed. E. HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES, as set forth in this section, shall be provided by GHC Home Health Services or by a GH-authorized home health agency when Referred in advance by a GHP Prodder for Members who meet the following criteria: 1. The Member is unable to leave home due to his or her health problem or illness (unwillingness to travel and/or arrange for transportation does not constitute inability to leave the home); 2. the Member requires intermittent Skilled Home Health Care services,as described below;and 3. a GHP Provider has determined that such services are Medically Necessary and are most appropriately rendered in the Member's home. Covered Services for home health care may include the following when prescribed by a GHP Provider and when rendered pursuant to an approved home health care plan of treatment: nursing care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, respiratory therapy, restorative speech therapy, and medical social worker and limited home health aide services. Home health services are provided on an intermittent basis in the Member's home. "Intermittent" means care that is to be rendered because of a medically predictable recurring need for Skilled Home Health Care services. Excluded are: custodial care and maintenance care, private duty or continuous nursing care in the Member's home,housekeeping or meal services, care in any nursing home or convalescent facility, any care provided by or for a member of the patient's family, and any other services rendered in the home which are not specifically listed as covered under this Agreement. F. HOSPICE Members who elect to receive services from the GHC Hospice Program or GH-approved hospice program are entitled to hospice services as provided under the Hospice Program. Members who elect to receive hospice services do so in lieu of curative treatment for their terminal illness for the period that they are in the hospice program. To receive hospice services,the Member is required to sign the Hospice Election Form. It is understood and agreed that the following fully sets forth the eligibility requirements and Covered Services for a Member who elects to receive hospice services under the GHC Hospice Program. GHC Hospice Program or GH-approved hospice program 1. Eligibility.Hospice Services, as set forth below,shall be provided to Members for as long as the following criteria are met: 0036900-CO8410 32 a. A GHP Provider has determined that the Member's illness is terminal and life expectancy is six (6) months or less; b. the Member has chosen a palliative treatment focus (emphasizing comfort and supportive services rather than treatment aimed at curing the Member's terminal illness); c. the Member has elected in writing to receive hospice care through GHC's Hospice Program or GH's approved hospice program; d. the Member has available a primary care person who will be responsible for the Members home care; and e. a GHP Provider and GHC's Hospice Director, or his/her designee, determine that the Members illness can be appropriately managed in the home. 2. Hospice care shall be defined as a coordinated program of palliative and supportive care for dying persons by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and volunteers centering primarily in the Members home. 3. Covered Services. Hospice services may include the following as prescribed by a GHP Provider and rendered pursuant to an approved hospice plan of treatment: a. Home Services i. Intermittent care by a hospice interdisciplinary team which may include services by a physician, nurse, medical social worker, physical therapist, speech therapist, occupational therapist, respiratory therapist, limited services by a Home Health Aide under the supervision of a Registered Nurse,and homemaker services. ii. Continuous care services in the Member's home when prescribed by a GHP Provider, as set forth in this paragraph.Continuous care is defined as "skilled nursing care provided in the home during a period of crisis in order to maintain the terminally ill patient at home." Continuous care may be provided for pain or symptom management by a Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Home Health Aide under the supervision of a Registered Nurse. Continuous care is provided up to twenty-four(24)hours per day during periods of crisis . Continuous care is covered only when a , GHP Provider determines that the Member would otherwise require hospitalization in an acute care facility. Inpatient Hospice Services for short-term care shall be provided in a facility designated by GHC's Hospice Program or GH-approved hospice program when Medically Necessary and authorized in advance by a GHP Provider and GHC's Hospice Program or GH- approved hospice program Inpatient respite care is covered for a maximum of five(5)consecutive days per occurrence in order to continue care for the member in the temporary absence of the member's primary care giver(s). -b. Other hospice services may include the following: i. Drugs and biologicals that are used primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; ii. medical appliances and supplies primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; iii. counseling services for the Member and his/her primary care-giver(s); and iv. bereavement counseling services for the family. 4. Hospice Exclusions: All services not specifically listed as covered in this section including: a. Financial or legal counseling services. b. Meal services. c. Custodial or maintenance care in the home or on an inpatient basis,except as provided above. d. Services not specifically listed as covered by this Medical Coverage Agreement. e. Any services provided by members of the patient's family. 0036900-008410 33 f. All other exclusions listed in Section Xl., Exclusions and Limitations of this Medical Coverage Agreement,apply. G. REHABILITATION SERVICES are covered as set forth in this section, limited to the following: physical therapy; occupational therapy; and speech therapy to restore function following illness, injury, or surgery. Services are subject to all terms, conditions,and limitations of this Agreement, including the following: 1. All services must be provided at GHC or a GH-approved rehabilitation facility and must be prescribed and provided by a GH-approved rehabilitation team that may include medical, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy,massage therapy and speech therapy providers. 2. The Member must be referred for rehabilitation service's in advance by a GHP Provider. 3. Services are limited to those necessary to restore or improve functional abilities when physical, sensori-perceptual and/or communication impairment exists due to injury or illness. Such services are provided only when GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee, determines that significant, measurable improvement to the Member's condition can be expected nithin a sixty(60)day period as a consequence of intervention by covered therapy services described in paragraph one(1)above. 4. Coverage for inpatient and outpatient services is limited to the allowance set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Services excluded under this benefit include the following: specialty rehabilitation programs not provided by GHC; long-term rehabilitation programs; physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy services when such services are available (whether application is made or not) through governmental programs; programs offered by public school districts; therapy for degenerative or static conditions when the expected outcome is primarily to maintain the Member's level of functioning (except for neurodevelopmental therapies); recreational life-enhancing relaxation or palliative therapy; implementation of home maintenance programs; �^- programs for treatment of learning problems;any other treatment not considered Medically Necessary by GHC; any services not specifically included as covered in this Section; and any services that are excluded under Section XI. Neurodevelopmental Therapies for Children Age Six (6) and Under. When determined to be Medically Necessary by GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee,physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy services for the restoration and improvement of function for neurodevelopmentally disabled children age six (6) and under shall be covered. Coverage includes maintenance of a covered Member in cases where significant deterioration in the Member's condition would result without the services.Coverage for inpatient and outpatient services is limited to the allowance set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Services excluded under this benefit include: specialty rehabilitation programs; long-term rehabilitation programs;physical therapy, occupational therapy,and speech therapy services when such services are available (whether application is made or not) through governmental programs; programs offered by public school districts; except as set forth above, therapy for degenerative or static conditions when the expected outcome is primarily to maintain the Member's level of functioning; implementation of home maintenance programs; any treatment not considered Medically Necessary; any services not specifically included as covered in this Section; and any services that are excluded under Section M. H. DEVICES,EQUIPINIENT AND SUPPLIES 1. Orthopedic Appliances.When Medically Necessary, orthopedic appliances (commonly known as a brace or a splint), which are attached to an impaired body segment for the purpose of protecting the segment or assisting in restoration or improvement of its function, are covered.Medically Necessary repair,adjustment or replacement of an orthopedic appliance is covered when authorized in advance by a GHP Provider. Covered Services are subject to the Coinsurance set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Excluded are arch �^ supports including custom shoe inserts and their fittings except for therapeutic shoes and shoe inserts for 0036900-008410 34 severe diabetic foot disease; orthopedic shoes that are not attached to an appliance; or any orthopedic '1 appliances that are not listed as covered in GHC's Orthopedic Appliance Formulary. 2. Ostomy Supplies. Medically Necessary ostomy supplies for the removal of bodily secretions or waste through an artificial opening are covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 3. Oxygen and Oxygen Equipment. When medical criteria as established by GHC are met, and upon Referral,oxygen and oxygen equipment for home use is covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 4. ' Durable Medical Equipment which is Medically Necessary,prescribed by a GHP Provider,in accordance with criteria established by GHC, and listed as covered in GHC's durable medical equipment formulary, limited to the following: rental(or purchase, if the cost of purchase is less than the anticipated total rental charges as determined solely by GHC) of hospital beds, wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes, glucose monitors, external insulin pumps and other durable medical equipment as specifically listed in GHC's durable medical equipment formulary. Services are covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 5. Prosthetic Devices. Prosthetic devices (which are not orthopedic appliances), commonly known as artificial limbs, etc., which are listed as covered in the GHC prosthetic device formulary when Medically Necessary and authorized in advance by a GHP Provider,as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Replacement or repair of appliances, devices and supplies that are due to loss, breakage from willful damage, neglect or wrongful use,or due to personal preference are excluded. I. TOBACCO CESSATION. When provided through GHC, services related to tobacco cessation are covered, limited to: 1. 'participation in one individual or group program per calendar year; .1 2. educational materials;and 3. one course of nicotine replacement therapy per calendar year,provided the Member is actively participating in the Group Health Free and Clear Program or GH-designated tobacco cessation program. Covered Services are subject to the Allowances set forth in the Allowances Schedule. J. LEGEND (PRESCRIPTION) DRUGS AND MEDICINES FOR OUTPATIENT USE as prescribed by a GHP Provider for conditions covered by this Agreement, including off-label use of FDA-approved drugs (provided that such use is documented to be effective in one of the standard reference compendia;a majority of well-designed clinical trials published in peer-reviewed medical literature document improved efficacy or safety of the agent over standard therapies,or over placebo if no standard therapies exist; or by the federal secretary of Health and Human Services), insulin, diabetic supplies, including insulin syringes, lancets, urine-testing reagents,and blood glucose monitoring reagents. All drugs, supplies, medicines, and devices must be obtained at a GH pharmacy. The prescription drug copayment as set forth in the Allowances Schedule applies to each 30-day supply. Copayments for single and multiple 30-day supplies of a given prescription are payable at the time of delivery. Injectables that can be self- administered are also subject to the prescription drug copayment. Generic drugs will be dispensed whenever available. Brand name drugs will be dispensed if there is not a generic equivalent In the event the Member elects to purchase brand-name drugs instead of the generic equivalent (if available), or if the Member elects to purchase a different brand-name or generic drug than that prescribed by the Member's Provider, and it is not determined to be Medically Necessary, the Member will also be subject to payment of the additional amount above the generic drug charge. "Standard reference compendia" means the American Hospital Formulary Service-Drug Information; the American Medical Drug Evaluation; the United States Pharmacopoeia-Drug Information, or other authoritative 0036900-008410 35 compendia as identified from time to time by the federal secretary of Health and Human Services. "Peer- reviewed medical literature" meats scientific studies printed in healthcare journals or other publications in �. which original manuscripts are published only after having been critically reviewed for scientific accuracy, validity, and reliability by unbiased independent experts. Peer-reviewed medical literature does not include in- house publications of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. Excluded are: over-the-counter drugs, medicines, and devices not requiring a prescription under state law or regulations; contraceptive drugs and devices, and their fitting; dietary formulas and special diets, except as set forth in Section X.B.;drugs used in the treatment of sexual dysfunction disorders; medicines and injections for anticipated illness while traveling; vitamins, including Legend (prescription) vitamins; and any other drugs, medicines and injections not listed as covered in the GHC Drug Formulary (approved drug list) unless Medically Necessary.Unless an exception is approved by GHC, drugs not approved by the FDA and in general use as of March 1 of the year immediately preceding the year in which this Agreement became effective or was last renewed are also excluded. The Member will be charged for replacing lost or stolen drugs,medicines or devices. K. MENTAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. GHC and state law have established standards to assure the competence and professional conduct of mental health service providers, to guarantee your right to informed consent to treatment, to assure the privacy of your medical information, to enable you to know which services are covered under this plan and to know the limitations on your coverage. If you would like a more detailed description than is provided here of covered benefits for mental health services under this plan, or if you have questions or concerns about any aspect of your mental health benefits,please contact GHC at 888-901-4636. If you would like to know more about your rights under the law,or if you think anything you received from this plan may not conform to the terms of your contract or your rights under the law,you may contact the Office of the Insurance Commissioner at 800-562-6900. If you have a concern about the qualifications or professional conduct of your mental health provider,please call the State Health Department at 360-236-4902. 1. Outpatient Services.Mental health care services are provided on an outpatient basis at GH in individual, family, couple, and group therapy formats. Services provided place priority on restoring social and occupational functioning, such as evaluation,crisis intervention, managed psychotherapy, intermittent care, psychological testing, and consultation services. The length and type of the treatment program and the frequency and modality of visits shall be determined by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Coverage for each Member is provided according to the Outpatient Mental Health Care Allowance set forth in the Allowances Schedule. Psychiatric medical services including medical management and medications are covered as set forth in Sections X.B. and X.J.All individual, family,couple, and group visits of one and one-half(1-1/2) hours or less are regarded as one full visit per individual. A missed appointment will be considered a "visit" unless GHC's Mental Health Service is notified at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of a scheduled session. 2. Inpatient Services. Usual, Customary, and Reasonable charges for services described in this section, including psychiatric Emergencies resulting in inpatient services, shall be covered to the maximum benefit as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. This benefit shall include coverage for acute treatment and stabilization of psychiatric emergencies in GHC-approved hospitals. When medically indicated, outpatient electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) is covered in lieu of inpatient services. Payment of bills incurred at non-GH facilities shall exclude any charges that would otherwise be excluded for hospitalization within a GH Facility. When authorized in advance by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee, partial hospitalization and outpatient electro-convulsive therapy programs are covered subject to the maximum inpatient benefit limit described in the Allowances Schedule. Every two (2) partial hospitalization days or two (2) electro-convulsive therapy treatments are equivalent to one inpatient hospital day. The total maximum annual benefit under this section shall not exceed the number of inpatient days described in the Allowances Schedule. 0036900-008410 36 Subject to the maximum Inpatient Mental Health Care Allowance as set forth in the Allowances Schedule, services provided under involuntary commitment statutes shall be covered at facilities approved by GH. Services for any court-ordered treatment program beyond the seventy-two(72)hours shall be covered only if determined to be Medically Necessary by GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee. Coverage for voluntary/involuntary Emergency inpatient psychiatric services is subject to the Emergency care benefit as set forth in Section X.L., including the twenty-four (24) hour notification and transfer provisions. All other voluntary psychiatric care must be authorized in advance by the Director of GHC's Mental Health Service,or his/her designee; the facility must be approved by the Cooperative.All voluntary care not authorized in advance by GHC's Mental Health Service is not covered. 3. Exclusions and Limitations for Outpatient and Inpatient Mental Health Treatment Services.Covered Services are limited to those considered to be Medically Necessary by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee. Covered Services are limited to those provided for covered conditions for which, in the opinion of GHC's Medical Director,or his/her designee,improvement or stabilization can be expected. Partial hospitalization programs and electro-convulsive therapy are covered only under subsection K.2. (Inpatient Services). Excluded are all forms of extensive psychotherapy; day treatment; residential care, custodial care; treatment of sexual disorders; specialty programs for mental health therapy which are not provided by GHC; court-ordered treatment which is not specifically described above; or any other services not specifically listed as covered in this section. All other provisions, exclusions and limitations under this Agreement also apply. L. EMERGENCY/URGENT CARE Emergency Care(See Section I.for a definition of Emergency): "1 1. At a GH Facility or GH Designated Facility.GHC will cover Emergency care for all Covered Services as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 2. At a Non-GH Designated Facility. Usual, Customary, and Reasonable charges for Emergency care for Covered Services are covered subject to: a. payment of the Emergency Care Deductible shown in the Allowances Schedule;and b. notification of GH by way of the GH Notification Line within twenty-four (24) hours following inpatient admission,or as soon thereafter as medically possible. Outpatient medications prescribed by a non-GHP Provider are excluded. 3. Waiver of Emergency Care Copayment/Deductible. a. Waiver for Multiple Injury Accident. If two or more members of the Family Unit require Emergency care as a result of the same accident, only one Emergency Care Copayment/Deductible will apply. b. Emergencies Resulting in an Inpatient Admission. If the Member is admitted to a GH or GH Designated Facility directly from the emergency room, the Emergency Care Copayment is waived. However,the first day's Hospital Care Copayment,if any,will be charged. 4. Transfer and Follow-up Care. If a Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Facility, GHC reserves the right to require transfer of the Member to a GH Facility,upon consultation with a GHP Provider. If the Member refuses to transfer to a GH Facility, all further costs incurred during the hospitalization are the responsibility of the Member. 0036900-008410 37 Follow-up care which is a direct result of the Emergency must be obtained at GHC,unless a GB?Provider has authorized such follow-up care in advance. Urgent Care(See Section I.for a definition of Urgent Condition): 5. Urgent Care. Care for Urgent Conditions received inside the GHC Service Area is covered only at GH medical centers,GH urgent care clinics,or network providers' offices. Urgent care received at any hospital emergency department is not covered unless authorized in advance by a GHP Provider. M. AMBULANCE SERVICES are covered as set forth below,provided that the service is authorized in advance by a GHP Provider or meets the definition of an Emergency.(See Section I.) I. Emergency Transport to a GH Facility, GH Designated Facility, or non-GH Designated Facility. Each Emergency is covered as set forth in the Allowances Schedule. 2. GH-Initiated Transfers. GH-initiated non-emergent transfers to or from a GH Facility is covered. Section XI. Exclusions and Limitations A. EXCLUSIONS 1. Blood for transfusions. 2. Except as specifically listed and identified as covered in Sections X.B., X.D., X.H., and X.J., corrective appliances and artificial aids including: eyeglasses; contact lenses, including services related to their fitting;hearing aids and examinations in connection therewith;take-home dressings and supplies following hospitalization; or any other supplies, dressings, appliances, devices or services which are not specifically listed as covered in Section X. 3. Cosmetic services, including treatment for complications of cosmetic surgery, except as provided in Section X.D. 4. Convalescent or custodial care,including skilled nursing facility care,unless otherwise noted in Section X. 5. Durable medical equipment such as hospital beds, wheelchairs, and walk-aids, except while in the hospital or as set forth in Section X.B.,,X.F.or X.H. 6. Services rendered as a result of work-incurred injuries,illnesses or conditions. 7. Those parts of an examination and associated reports and immunizations required for employment(unless otherwise noted in Section X.B.), immigration, license, travel, or insurance purposes that are not deemed Medically Necessary by GHC for early detection of disease. 8. Procedures,services,and supplies related to sex transformations. 9. Regardless of origin or cause, diagnostic testing and medical treatment of sterility, infertility, and sexual dysfunction,unless otherwise noted in Section X.B. 10. Services of practitioners whose licensing category is not represented by GH Medical Personnel, unless otherwise noted in Section X.B. 11. Any services to the extent benefits are available to the Member under the terms of any vehicle, homeowner's, property or other insurance policy, except for individual or group health insurance, whether the Member asserts a claim or not, pursuant to: (1) medical coverage, medical "no fault" coverage, Personal Injury Protection coverage, or similar medical coverage contained in said policy; and/or (2) uninsured motorist or underinsured motorist coverage contained in said policy. For the purpose of this 0036900-008410 38 exclusion, benefits shall be deemed to be "available" to the Member if the Member is a named insured, comes within the policy definition of insured, is a third-party donee beneficiary under the terms of the policy,or otherwise has the right to receive benefits under the policy. The Member and his or her agents must cooperate fully with GHC in its efforts to enforce this exclusion. This cooperation shall include supplying GHC with information about any available insurance coverage. The Member and his or her agents shall permit GHC at GHC's option, to associate with the Member or to intervene in any action filed against any party related to the injury. The Member and his or her agents shall do nothing to prejudice GHC's right to enforce this exclusion. GHC shall not enforce this exclusion as to coverage available under uninsured motorist or underinsured motorist coverage until the Member has been made whole, unless the Member fails to cooperate fully with GHC as described above. In the event the Member fails to cooperate fully, the Member shall be responsible for reimbursing GHC for such medical expenses. GHC shall not pay any attorneys' fees or collection costs to attorneys representing the injured person where it has retained its own legal counsel or acts on its own behalf to represent its interests and unless there is a written fee agreement signed by GHC prior to any collection efforts. 12. Services or supplies not specifically listed as covered in the Schedule of Benefits. 13. Voluntary (not medically indicated and nontherapeutic) termination of pregnancy, unless otherwise noted in Section X.B. 14. The cost of services and supplies resulting from a Membees loss of or willful damage to covered appliances,devices,supplies,and materials provided by GHC for the treatment of disease,injury,or illness. 15. Orthoptic(eye training)therapy. 16. Specialty treatment programs that are not provided by GHC including weight reduction,rehabilitation, and "behavior modification programs." 17. Services required as a result of war,whether declared or not declared. I8. Nontherapeutic sterilization (unless otherwise noted in Section X.B.) and procedures and services to reverse a therapeutic or nontherapeutic sterilization. 19. Dental care, surgery, services, and appliances, including: treatment of accidental injury to natural teeth, reconstructive surgery to the jaw in preparation for dental implants, dental implants, periodontal surgery, and any other dental services not specifically listed as covered in Section X. The Cooperative's Medical Director, or his/her designee, will determine whether the care or treatment required is within the category of dental care or service. If a GHP Provider determines that an unrelated medical condition requires that a Member be hospitalized for a dental procedure which is normally done in a dentist's office, GHC will cover associated hospital and anesthesia costs at a GH or GH Designated Facility. GHC will not cover the dentist's or oral surgeon's fees. 20. Drugs, medicines, and injections, except as set forth in Section X.J. Any exclusion of drugs, medicines, and injections, including those not listed as covered in the GHC Drug Formulary (approved drug list), will also exclude their administration. 21. Experimental or investigational services. (a) A service is experimental or investigational for a Member's condition if any of the following statements apply to it as of the time the service is or will be provided to the Member. The service (i) 0036900-008410 39 cannot be legally marketed in the United States without the approval of the Food and Drug �-. Administration("FDA")and such approval has not been granted; or(ii)is the subject of a current new drug or new device application on file with the FDA; or(iii)is provided as part of a Phase I or Phase II clinical trial, as the experimental or research arm of a Phase III clinical trial, or in any other manner that is intended to evaluate the safety,toxicity,or efficacy of the service; or(iv)is provided pursuant to a written protocol or other document that lists an evaluation of the service's safety,toxicity,or efficacy as among its objectives; or(v) is under continued scientific testing and research concerning the safety, toxicity, or efficacy of services;or (vi) is provided pursuant to informed consent documents that describe the service as experimental or investigational,or in other terms that indicate that the service is being evaluated for its safety, toxicity, or efficacy; or As to the service: (vii) the prevailing opinion among experts as expressed in the published authoritative medical or scientific literature is that(1)use of the service should be substantially confined to research settings, or(2)further research is necessary to determine the safety, toxicity,or efficacy of the service. (b) In making determinations whether a service is experimental or investigational,the following sources of information will be relied upon exclusively: (i ) the Member's medical records, (ii) the written protocol(s) or other document(s)pursuant to which the service has been or will be provided, (iii) any consent document(s)the Member or Member's representative has executed or will be asked to execute, to receive the service, (iv) the files and records of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or similar body that approves or reviews research at the institution where the service has been or will be provided, and other information concerning the authority or actions of the IRB or similar body,(v)the published authoritative medical or scientific literature regarding the service, as applied to the Member's illness or injury, and (vi) regulations, records, applications, and any other documents or actions issued by, filed with, or taken by, the FDA, the Office of Technology Assessment, or other agencies within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or any state agency performing similar functions. (c) GHC consults with GHC's Medical Director and then uses the criteria described above to decide if a %- particular service is experimental or investigational. Appeals regarding denial of coverage must be submitted to your regional Member Services Department,or west of the mountains to GHC's Appeals Department at Riverton Operations Center, PO Box 34593, Seattle WA 98124-1593 or east of the mountains to GH's Patient Relations Department at 5615 West Sunset Highway, Spokane, WA 99224. GHC will respond in writing within twenty (20) working days of the receipt of a fully documented request. An expedited appeal is available if delay would jeopardize the Member's life or health. 22. Mental health care,except as specifically provided in Section X.K. 23. Hypnotherapy,and all services related to hypnotherapy. 24. Genetic testing and related services are excluded unless determined Medically Necessary by GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee, or specifically provided in Section KB. Testing far non Members is also excluded. B. LIMITATIONS 1. Conditions and Extent of Coverage. ALL SERVICES AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY CH MEDICAL PERSONNEL AT A GH FACILITY UNLESS: a. The Member has received a Referral from a GHP Provider. b. The Member has received Emergency services according to Section X.L. 0036900-CO8410 40 2. Recommended Treatment. The Cooperative's Medical Director or his/her designee will determine the necessity,nature,and extent of treatment to be provided in each individual case and the judgment,made in good faith,will be final. Members have the right to participate in decisions regarding their health care. A Member may refine recommended treatment or diagnostic plan to the extent permitted by law.In such case, GHC shall have no fiuther obligation to provide the care in question.Members who seek other sources of care because of such a disagreement do so with the full understanding that GHC has no obligation for the cost, or liability for the outcome,of such care. 3. Major Disaster or Epidemic:In the event of a major disaster or epidemic, GH Medical Personnel will provide Covered Services according to their best judgment,within the limitations of available facilities and personnel.The Cooperative has no liability for delay or failure to provide or arrange Covered Services to the extent facilities or personnel are unavailable due to a major disaster or epidemic. 4. Unusual Circumstances. If the provision of,Covered Services is delayed or rendered impossible due to unusual circumstances such as complete or partial destruction of facilities, military action, civil disorder, labor disputes, or similar causes, GHC shall provide or arrange for services that, in the reasonable opinion of GHC's Medical Director, or his/her designee, are emergent or urgently needed. In regard to nonurgent and routine services, GHC shall make a good faith effort to provide services through its then-available facilities and personnel. GHC shall have the option to defer or reschedule services that are not urgent or routine while its facilities and services are so affected.In no case shall the Cooperative have any liability or obligation on account of delay or failure to provide or arrange such services. Section MI. Claims Members must submit claims for reimbursement of Covered Services to GHC within sixty (60) days of the service date, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible. If the Member is located west of the mountains, submit claims to PO Box 34585, Seattle, WA 98124-1585; if the Member is located east of the mountains submit claims to PO Box 200, Spokane,WA 99210-0200. In no event,except in the absence of legal capacity,shall a claim be accepted later than one(1) year from the service date. This section applies to Covered Services received under Section X.L. and X.M.,or services for which the Member has received a Referral from a GHP Provider. 0036900-008410 41 Medicare �- Endorsement For Persons Covered by Parts A and B of Medicare THE PROVISIONS OF THE GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF THE PROVISIONS, EXCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS MEDICARE ENDORSEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ENDORSEMENT DUPLICATE THE BENEFITS UNDER THE GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT. THE HIGHER LEVEL OF BENEFIT WILL APPLY. COVERAGE UNDER THIS GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT IS INTEGRATED WITH THE MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BENEFITS ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 18 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AS AMENDED, AND REFERRED TO AS "MEDICARE." THE BENEFITS AND EXCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS ENDORSEMENT APPLY ONLY TO MEMBERS WHO ARE COVERED UNDER BOTH PART A AND PART B OF MEDICARE. Except as defined by Federal Regulations, all Members entitled to, or eligible to purchase Medicare must transfer to the GH Medicare+Choice Plan upon such entitlement or eligibility. A condition of enrollment under the GH Medicare+Choice Plan requires that a Member be continuously enrolled for the hospital (Part A) and medical (Part B) benefits available from the Social Security Administration, and sign any papers that may be required by GH or Medicare. For additional information, the Member may refer to "Medicare & You" handbook, which can be obtained from your local Social Security office. NEITHER GH NOR MEDICARE MAY PAY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT NON-GH FACILITIES UNLESS THE MEMBER HAS BEEN REFERRED BY GH OR THE MEMBER HAS RECEIVED EMERGENCY OR URGENTLY NEEDED SERVICES OR OUT-OF-THE- AREA RENAL DIALYSIS SERVICES ACCORDING TO SECTION V.D. OF THIS MEDICARE ENDORSEMENT OR THE MEMBER HAS RECEIVED NON-EMERGENT AND/OR NON-URGENTLY NEEDED CARE AT FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE SERVICE AREA UNDER YOUR POINT-OF-SERVICE (POS) BENEFIT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION V.E. For those enrolled under the GHM+Cplan, as set forth in this Endorsement, Copayments do not apply except for prescription drugs. This Endorsement does not constitute a "Medicare supplemental"contract. Section I. HEALTH CARE TERMS CUSTODIAL CARE: Care furnished for the purpose of meeting non-Medically Necessary personal needs which could be provided by persons without professional skills or training, such as assistance in mobility, dressing, bathing, eating, preparation of special diets, and taking medication. Custodial Care is not covered by the GH M+C Plan or Medicare unless provided in conjunction with Skilled Nursing Care and/or skilled rehabilitation services. 0036900-CO8410 42 EMERGENCY CONDITION: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that a prudent lay person who with an average knowledge of health and medicine could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in I) Serious jeopardy to the health of the individual or, in the case of a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child, 2) Serious impairment to bodily functions; or 3)Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part EMERGENCY SERVICES: Covered inpatient and outpatient services that are famished by a provider qualified to furnish emergency services needed to evaluate or stabilize an emergency medical condition. HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (HCFA): The Federal Agency responsible for administering Medicare. MAXIMUM CHARGES: A term used to define the level of benefits which are payable by GH when expenses are incurred from a non-GH physician or provider. Expenses are considered Maximum Charges if(1) the charges are consistent with those normally charged by the provider or organization for the same services or supplies; and (2) the charges are within the general range of charges made by other providers in the same geographical area for the same services or supplies. MEDICARE: The Federal Government health insurance program established by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act MEDICARE+CHOICE (M+C) COORDINATED CARE PLANS: These are M+C Plans that use a network of providers that are under contract or arrangement with a Medicare+Choice Organization to provide covered benefits. The GHM+CPIan is a Coordinated Care Plan. MEDICARE+CHOICE (M+C) ORGANIZATION: A public or private entity organized and licensed by the State as a risk-bearing entity that is certified by HCFA as meeting M+C contract requirements. M+C Organizations can offer one or more M+C Plans. GH is an M+C Organization. MEDICARE+CHOICE PLAN: A policy or benefit package offered by a Medicare+Choice Organization under which a specific set of health benefits offered at a uniform premium and uniform level of cost-sharing to all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the service area covered by the Plan. An M+C Organization may offer more than one benefit Plan in the same Service Area. The GH Plan is an M+Cplan. OUT OF THE SERVICE AREA ALLOWANCE: This health care term is the same as Point Of Service(POS). PERMANENT MOVE: A change of residence out of the service area or an uninterrupted absence of more than six(6) months from GH Service Area. POINT OF SERVICE (POS): A benefit that GH offers to its M+C Members while temporarily traveling outside of the GH M+C Plan Service Area for non-emergent and/or non- 0036900-CO8410 43 urgently needed care. In return 'for this flexibility, members have higher cost-sharing requirements for these services. REFERRAL: A formal recommendation by your Primary Care Physician or his/her Contracting Medical Group that you receive care from a Specialist, Contracting Medical Provider, or Non-Contracting Medical Provider. SERVICE AREA: The geographic area comprised of parts of Grays Harbor, Island, King. Kitsap, Lewis,parts of Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties, and any other areas designated by GH and approved by the Health Care Financing Administration. (See Service Area Map.) SKILLED NURSING FACILITY: A facility which provides inpatient Skilled Nursing Care, rehabilitation services, or other related health services and is certified by Medicare. The term "Skilled Nursing Facility" does not include a convalescent nursing home, rest facility, or facility for the aged which furnishes primarily Custodial Care, including training in routines of daily living. URGENTLY NEEDED CONDITIONS: Covered Services provided when you are temporarily absent from the GH M+C Plan Service Area (or, under unusual and extraordinary circumstances,provided when you are in the Service Area but your Contracting Medical Group is temporarily unavailable or inaccessible) when such services are Medically Necessary and immediately required I) as a result of an unforeseen illness, injury, or condition; and 2) it is not reasonable, given the circumstances, to obtain the services through your Contracting Medical Group. r Section H. DISENROLLMENT Enrollment under the GH M+C Plan for a specific Member, may be terminated in the circumstances set forth below. Until such time as a Member's termination of enrollment from GH is effective, neither Medicare nor any other Medicare+Choice organization shall pay for services for which GH is responsible. While a Member is enrolled with GH, GH will only cover the following services provided by non-GH Providers, non-GH Facilities, or non-GH Designated Facilities: (1) Referrals authorized by a GH Provider; (2) Emergency anywhere in the world or Urgent Care, out-of-area renal dialysis services as set forth in Section V.D.; or (3) Non-Emergent and/or Non-Urgently Needed care at facilities outside the Service Area under your Point-of-Service (POS) benefits, as set forth in Section V.D. Upon termination of membership in GH, neither GH nor GH Providers shall have further liability or responsibility under this Agreement for Member's health care services. A. Involuntary Disenrollment. GH may disenroll you from the GHM+CPlan only under the conditions listed below. You will not be disenrolled due to your health status. 0036900-CO8410 44 1. If you move permanently out of the service area and do not voluntarily disenroll or choose Continuation of coverage, 2. If your entitlement to Medicare Park A or enrollment in Part B benefits ends; 3. If you supply fraudulent information or make misrepresentations on your individual election form which materially affects your eligibility to enroll in the GHJV+CPIan; 4. If you are disruptive, unruly, abusive or uncooperative to the extent that your membership in the GH M+C Plan seriously impairs our ability to arrange Covered Services for you or other individuals enrolled in the plan. Involuntary Disenrollment on this basis is subject to prior approval by HCFA; 5. You allow another person to use your GH M+C Plan membership card to obtain Covered Service; 6. You fail to pay the Plan basic Premiums. Disenrollment in this case is subject to the 90-day grace period for late payment of premiums; or 7. The contract between GH and HCFA under which the GH M+C Plan is offered is terminated, or the GHM+CPIan service area is reduced. Such termination shall be subject to review and approval by HCFA. HCFA must be notified if disenrollment is due to reasons 3-5. B. Persons Hospitalized on the Date of Termination. A Member who is a registered bed patient receiving Covered Services in a GH Facility or GH Designated Facility on the date of termination shall continue to receive covered inpatient services, until discharge from the facility. This continued coverage will also apply to a Member hospitalized in a Medicare-certified non-GH Designated Facility as a result of Emergency or Urgently Needed Services or Referral as set forth in Section VI.B. of this Medicare Endorsement. C. Services Provided After Termination. Any services provided by GH after the effective date of termination (except those services covered under Section H.B. of this Medicare Endorsement) shall be charged according to the Directory of Services. The Subscriber shall be liable for payment of all such charges for services provided to the Subscriber and all Family Dependents. Section III. SUBROGATION (COORDINATING OTHER BENEFITS YOU MAYHALE) Who Pays First If you are age 65 or older and have coverage under an employer group plan of an employer of twenty (20) or more employees, either based on your own current employment or the current employment of a spouse, you must use the benefits under that plan. Similarly, if you have Medicare based on disability and are covered under an employer group plan of an employer of one hundred(100) or more employees (or a multiple employer plan that includes an employer 0036900-CO8410 45 of one hundred or more employees) either through your own current employment or that of a r` family member,you must use the benefits under that plan. In such cases,you will only receive benefits not covered by your employer group plan through our contract with Medicare. A special rule applies if you have or develop End Stage Renal Disease(ESRD). If any no-fault or any liability insurance (or payment from a liable third party) is available to you, then benefits under that plan (or from that liable third parry) must be applied to the costs of health care covered by this plan. Where we have provided benefits and a judgment or settlement is made with a no-fault or liability insurer (or liable third party), you must reimburse us. However, our reimbursement may be reduced by a share of procurement costs (e.g., attorney fees and costs). Workers' compensation for treatment of a work-related illness or injury should also be applied to covered health care costs by this plan. If you have (or develop) ESRD and are covered under an employer group plan,you must use the benefits of that plan for the first thirty (30) months after becoming eligible for Medicare based on ESRD. Medicare is the primary payer after this coordination period. (However, if your employer group plan coverage was secondary to Medicare when you developed ESRD because it was not based on current employment as described above, Medicare continues to be primary payer.) Because of this, we may ask you for information about other insurance you may have. If you have other insurance,you can help us obtain payment from the other insurer by providing the information we request promptly. Coordination of benefits protects you from higher Plan Premiums. The end result is more affordable health cares SectionlV. APPEAL AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A. Grievances. If a member is dissatisfied with care or services received at a Medical or Dental Office or Hospital, or a Member disputes eligibility or membership status, the Member may submit a written grievance to GHC. GHC will conduct a formal review and provide a written response within 60 days of the time all pertinent materials are received. B. Expedited Requests for Care or Service. 1. Standard Request. The Member may request that care or a service be covered by GHC on the basis that it is a Medicare covered service. GHC will reach a decision within 14 days. GHC's decision may be delayed an additional 14 days if it is in the Member's best interest or upon the Member's request. 2. If a member requests care or a service they believe is covered by Medicare and the Member believes and/or his/her physician states that a delay in making a determination about coverage could jeopardize the Member's health or ability to function, the Member may request an expedited decision. In most instances, GHC will reach a decision within 72 hours. GHC's decision may be delayed an additional 14 working days if it is in the Member's best interest to delay a decision or upon the Member's request. GHC's decision may also be postponed in the event information for a non-GHC provider has not 0036900-CO8410 46 been received in a timely manner. If GHC grants a Member's request for an expedited decision, GHC will orally notify the Member and follow-up within two (2) working days, with a written letter. If a Member disagrees with GHC's decision not to expedite his/her request, the Member may file a grievance. C. Appeals. Members have a right to appeal any decision in which GHC declines to provide, cover, or pay for services that the Member believes are covered by Medicare. If GHC declines to provide or to cover a service,GHC will provide the Member with a Notice of Non-coverage containing the reason(s) for the denial and an explanation of the Member's appeal rights. Members who disagree with a decision by GHC may submit a written appeal to GHC. Members appealing a denied claim for payment for a service already provided or arranged may request a standard 60-day appeal. Members appealing a request for a future service may ask for either a standard 30-day appeal or an Expedited (72-hour) appeal if the Member believes (or the Member's Provider states) that a delay in responding to the Member's appeal could seriously jeopardize his/her health or ability to function. Appeals will be reviewed by persons not involved in the initial decision. If GHC decides to uphold the original adverse decision, either in whole or in part, the entire file will be forwarded by GHC to HCFA for review. 1. Standard Appeal. a. 60-Day Appeals for Claim for Payment A member may submit an appeal requesting a second review at any time GHC denies coverage for services already provided or arranged by either GHC or a non-GHC provider or facility, or for future services. Member must submit appeals in writing to GHC, or to any Social Security Office, or in the case of a railroad retirement annuitant, a Railroad Retirement Board Office, within 60 days of receiving notice of GHC's initial decision. After receiving all pertinent materials, GHC will conduct a formal review of the appeal. GHC will notify the Member of its decision within 60 days of receipt. If GHC decides fully in the Member's favor, GHC will pay the claim(s) within 60 days of receipt of the member's appeal. If GHC upholds any part of the initial denial, the entire file will be forwarded by GHC to HCFA for review. HCFA will make a reconsideration decision and advise the Member or its decision, the reasons for the decision and the right to additional appeal rights. b. 30-Day Appeals for Denials of Future Sen-ices. A member may submit an appeal requesting a second review at any time GHC denies coverage for future services. Members must submit appeals in writing to GHC, or to any Social Security Office, or in the case of a railroad retirement annuitant a Railroad Retirement Board Office, within 60 days of the date of GHC's initial decision. After receiving all pertinent materials, GHC will conduct a formal review- of the appeal. GHC will notify the Member of its decision within 30 days of receipt. GHC's decision may be extended an additional 14 days if it is in the member's best interests or upon the Member's request. If GHC upholds any part of the initial denial, the entire file will be 0036900-008410 47 forwarded by GHC to HCFA's contractor, The Center for Health Dispute Resolution ("The Center") for review. The Center will make a reconsideration decision and advise the Member of its decision, the reason for the decision, and the right to additional appeal rights. 2. Filing an Expedited (72-hour) Appeal (does not apply to denied claims for payment). If a delay in receiving a decision could jeopardize the Member's health or ability to function, the Member or his/her Physician may submit a request for an expedited appeal either orally or in writing to GHC. D. Immediate Peer Review Organization ("PRO") Review. A Member may request immediate Peer Review Organization("PRO") review if GHC denies coverage of a continued inpatient stay in a hospital on the basis of medical necessity. A Member may request immediate PRO review by phone or in writing. If a Member request PRO review by noon of the first business day after a Member has received a Notice of Noncoverage, the Member will not be financially responsible for the cost of the continued hospitalization until the PRO determination. GHC will provide the Member written notice of procedures by which to request a PRO review. If a Member requests a PRO review, the Member may not pursue the Standard Appeal Procedure and/or the Expedited Appeal Procedure with respect to denial of the same hospital stay. E. Additional Appeal Rights. !^ If HCFA upholds GHC's initial determination and denies the appeal and if the amount in controversy is greater than $100.00, the Member may request a hearing before an administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration. The Member may request a hearing before an administrative law judge by writing to GHC, HCFA, or a Social Security Office within 60 days after the date of notice of an adverse reconsideration decision. If the administrative law judge denies a Member's appeal, either the Member or GHC may request a review by the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council. If a Member's appeal is denied by the Appeals Council and if the amount in controversy is greater than $1,000.00, the Member or GHC may request a review by a Federal District Court. An initial, revised, or reconsideration determination made by GHC, HCFA, an administrative law judge, or the Appeals Council can be reopened (a) within twelve months, (b) within four years for just cause, or(c) at any time for clerical correction or in the case of fraud. The Medicare Appeals Coordinator can be reached by writing to Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, c/o Medicare Appeals Coordinator, P.O. Box 34589, Seattle WA 98134, or by calling (206) 90.7-7350 or toll-free at 1-(888)-901-4636 or TTY/TDD (206) 901-4602 for the "hearing impaired"and ask for 901-7350, or by fax at (206) 901-4602. Section V. SCHEDULE OF MEDICAL BENEFITS 0036900-CO8410 48 All benefits and services listed in this Schedule of Benefits: • are subject to all provisions of this Agreement and Medicare Endorsement; • must be approved in advance by GHC except for Emergency and Urgently Needed Services as set forth in Section V.D. of this Medicare Endorsement; and •: must meet Medicare guidelines and limitations unless otherwise specified. GH has procedures to assist GH Providers in establishing a treatment plan for Members with complex or serious medical conditions. New Members should discuss all his/her medical concerns with the GH Primary Care Provider selected. New Members may expect their health status to be assessed within 90 days of their enrollment. GH will ensure that services are provided in a culturally-competent manner. GH Providers will provide information regarding treatment options in a culturally competent manner and will accommodate Members with disabilities. The booklet, "Medicare and You" provides additional information about Medicare benefits, and can be obtained from your local Social Security office, or your Washington State Part B carrier's office. Services received at facilities outside the GH Service Area may be covered for non-emergent and/or non-urgently needed care subject to the Point-of-Service (POS) benefit set forth in your Summary of Medical Benefits. All Medicare non-covered expenses, including deductibles and coinsurances, are the responsibility of the Member. A. Skilled Nursing Facility. Upon Referral and following a Medicare-certified three (3) day hospital stay, GH will cover up to one hundred (100) days of care in a Skilled Nursing Facility, in accordance with Medicare Guidelines, when Medically Necessary, as determined by GH Medical Director, or his/her designee. B. Hospice. Members with Part A and Part B of Medicare who elect to receive Medicare-covered hospice services may select any Medicare-certified hospice program. Members who elect to receive services from the GH Hospice Program are entitled to hospice services as provided under the Medicare Hospice Program. Members who elect to receive hospice services do so in lieu of curative treatment for their terminal illness for the period that they are in the hospice program. To receive hospice services, the Member is required to sign the Hospice Election Form. Covered Services. In addition to the hospice services provided under the Group Medical Coverage Agreement, the following hospice services shall be provided: 1. Home Services Continuous care services per Member in the Member's home when prescribed by a GH Provider, as set forth in this paragraph. Continuous care is defined as "skilled nursing 0036900-008410 49 care provided in the home during a period of crisis in order to maintain the terminally ill patient at home." Continuous care may be provided for pain or symptom management by a Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Home Health Aide under the supervision of a Registered Nurse. Continuous care may be provided up to twenty-four (24) hours per day during periods of crisis. Continuous care is covered only when a GH Provider determines that the Member otherwise would require hospitalization in an acute care facility. 2. Inpatient Hospice Services for short-term care shall be provided through a Medicare-certified Hospice Program when Medically Necessary, and authorized in advance by a GH Provider. Respite care is covered for a maximum of five (5) consecutive days per occurrence in order to continue care for the Member in the temporary absence of the Member's primary care-giver(s). 3. Other hospice services may include the following: a. drugs and biologicals that are used primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; b. medical appliances and supplies primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; c. counseling services for the Member and his/her primary care-giver(s); and d. bereavement counseling services for the family. C. Mental Health Care, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Treatment Services. 1. Outpatient mental health, alcoholism and substance abuse treatment services are covered for each Member in accordance with Medicare Guidelines and may be subject to a copayment. 2. Inpatient mental health care services are covered in full up to a 190-day lifetime benefit when such services are provided in a Medicare-certified psychiatric hospital. 3. Inpatient alcoholism and drug abuse treatment services are covered in full when such services are provided in a hospital-based treatment center. Coverage for Medical Emergencies incident to alcoholism and drug abuse or for acute alcoholism or drug abuse, including acute detoxification, is provided as set forth in Section V.D. of this Medicare Endorsement. D. Emergency/Urgently Needed Services. When an Emergency meets the Medicare definition for Emergency or Urgently Needed Services as defined in Section I. Of this Medicare Endorsement, services are covered and may be subject to a copayment. E. If the Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Facility and requires continued inpatient care GH will continue to cover the non-emergent care and services at the non-GH Facility needed by the Member to remain medically stable until: (1) the Member is discharged; (2) a GH 0036900-008410 50 Provider arrives and assumes responsibility for the Member's care; or (3) GH and the Member's treating physician decide the Member may be transferred without harmful medical consequences whichever occurs first. A decision to transfer the member to a GH Facility is made at the discretion of GH with the attending physician's concurrence. Post-stabilization care at a non-GH facility will be covered when: (a) Pre-approved by Group Health; or (b) Not pre-approved because Group Health did not respond to the request far pre-approval within one (1) hour after being requested to approve such care, or Group Health could not be contacted.for pre-approval. F. Point-of-Service (POS). Non-emergent and/or non-urgently needed care received while temporarily traveling outside GH's Medicare Service Area is payable at Medicare benefit levels up to $2,000 per member per calendar year. All Medicare non-covered expenses, including hospital inpatient deductibles and inpatient and outpatient coinsurances, are the responsibility of the member. (GH's Service Area is defined in Section L of this Agreement) Coverage under this benefit does NOT include coverage ofprescription drugs. Services, as noted in this section, are available to Members traveling outside GH's defined Service Area, except when traveling primarily for the purpose of seeking medical care. Any durable medical equipment or prosthetic devices will be excluded unless authorized in advance by GH. The services received under this benefit are subject to all limitations set forth in this Agreement. All Medicare non-covered expenses, including hospital inpatient deductibles and inpatient and outpatient coinsurances are the responsibility of the Member. G. Medicare Ambulance Benefit. Medically Necessary ambulance transportation to or from a hospital or Skilled Nursing Facility is covered in full only if transportation by any other vehicle could endanger the patient's health and the ambulance, equipment, and personnel meet Medicare requirements. H. Medical and Surgical Care. The following medical and surgical services are covered when prescribed by GH Medical Personnel, Medicare requirements are met, and may be subject to a copayment: 1. Eye examinations and treatment for eye pathology. Evaluations and surgical procedures to correct refractions which are not related to eye pathology are not covered. Complications related to such surgery are also excluded. 2. One pair of eyeglasses or contact lenses, including examination and fitting, following each cataract surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens (IOL). Covered eyeglasses and contact lenses must be dispensed through GH Facilities. Replacements for Members following insertion of an intraocular lens are set forth in section F.13. below. Replacements in the absence of an intraocular lens will be provided when needed due to 0036900•C08410 51 change in the Member's medical condition or when deemed appropriate by a GH physician. 3. Blood,blood derivatives, and their administration. 4. Maternity and pregnancy-related services, including visits before and after birth; involuntary termination of pregnancy;and care for any other complication of pregnancy. 5.' Organ transplants, limited to those covered by Medicare when all Medicare criteria have been met. 6. Physician calls (including consultations and second opinions by a GH physician) in the hospital, office, home, Skilled Nursing Facility, nursing home,or convalescent center. 7. Restorative physical, occupational, and speech therapy following illness, injury, or surgery. 8. Immunizations and vaccinations that are listed as covered in the GH Drug Formulary (approved drug list) or approved by Medicare. 9. Services related to dysfunction of the jaw. When referred by a GH physician, evaluation and treatment by a GH-approved temporomandibular joint(TMJ) care provider. All TMJ appliances, other than the occlusal splint and its fitting, are excluded. Treatment of jaw dysfunction, including TMJ dysfunction, will NOT be provided when the dysfunction is related to malocclusion or when TMJ services are needed due to dental work performed. All such services and related hospitalization, including orthodontic therapy and orthognathic (jaw) surgery, are excluded regardless of origin or cause. (See Section X.B.17. of the Group Medical Coverage Agreement for Covered Services not meeting Medicare guidelines). 10. Chiropractic care limited to spinal manipulations. Excluded are any other diagnostic or therapeutic services, including x-rays, famished by a chiropractor. Members must receive all chiropractor services from GH's designated licensed providers in order to be covered. A list of GH-designated licensed practitioners is available by contracting any GH area medical center. 11. Podiatric care. Services are covered when all Medicare criteria are met and when authorized in advance by your Primary Care Provider. Excluded is treatment of flat feet or other misalignments of the feet; removal of corns and calluses; and routine foot care such as hygienic care, except in the presence of a nonrelated medical condition affecting the lower limbs. Members must utilize GH's designated providers in order to be covered. 12. Home intravenous (IV) drug therapy services. 13. Routine eye examinations and refractions, limited to once every twenty-four(24)months, i— except when Medically Necessary. Services for routine eye examinations must be 0036900-008410 52 received at a GH Facility and in accordance with GH medical criteria in order to be --1 covered and are not subject to Medicare requirements. Lenses. One pair of standard vision, lenticular, or non-blended bifocal or trifocal lenses, or contact lenses will be covered subject to the GH-approved allowance once every twenty-four (24) months and replaced as specified below, when received at a GH facility and in accordance with GH medical criteria. Frames. An Allowance of up to $100 per Member once every 24 months will be provided for frames. Replacements. Lens replacement for any reason (including loss, breakage or change in prescription)will be provided not more often than once every 24 months. Replacement of frames will be provided subject to the frames Allowance set forth above not more often than once every 24 months. 14. Hearing examinations to determine hearing loss. Hearing aids, including examinations and fitting, must be received at a GH Facility and are covered up to a maximum of$250 per Member once every 24 months. 15. Diabetic education and training, including glucose monitors and testing strips for all diabetics. 16. Renal dialysis services required while temporarily away from the Service Area will be covered if provided in a Medicare-approved facility and if in accordance with GH criteria for coverage. I. Prosthetic Devices, such as cardiac devices, intraocular lenses, artificial joints, breast prostheses, artificial eyes, and braces, are covered and may be subject to a copayment. Excluded are: orthopedic shoes unless they are part of leg braces; dental plates or other dental devices; and experimental devices. J. Medical/Surgical Supplies, such as casts, splints, post-surgical dressings, and ostomy supplies, are covered and may be subject to a copayment. K. Rental or Purchase of Durable Medical Equipment, such as oxygen and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs and other walk-aids, and hospital beds, is covered and may be subject to a copayment. L. Health club services (SilverSneakersm) and/or lifetime fitness programs at participating network health clubs are provided to Members without charge. Unlimited covered services include: traditional weight and cardiac equipment, pools, aerobics, and court facilities. In addition to club member privileges, a Member may bring a guest who is Medicare eligible for one visit up to four times per year without charge. A list of participating network health clubs may be obtained from GH upon request. Section VI. EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 0036900-CO8410 53 A. Exclusions. !� 1. Investigational procedures, including medical and surgical services, drugs and devices until formally approved by Medicare unless specifically provided herein (See Section XI.A.23. in the Group Medical Coverage Agreement). 2. Supportive devices (shoe inserts) for the feet. 3. Services directly related to obesity except as provided by Medicare. 4. Services or supplies not specifically listed as covered by Medicare or GH. B. Limitations. Conditions and Extent of Coverage. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS V.F.10. AND V.F.I I., ALL SERVICES AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY GH MEDICAL PERSONNEL AT A GH OR GH DESIGNATED FACILITY UNLESS: 1. the Member has received a Referral from GH,or 2. the Member has received Emergency or Urgently Needed Services as defined in Section 1. and as set forth in Section V.D. of this Medicare Endorsement. Section VII. CLAIMS PROCEDURE Claims for services or supplies and explanation of Medicare benefits for services or supplies should be sent to: Medicare Claims, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, P.O. Box 34585, Seattle, WA 98124-1585. If you must receive Emergency or Urgently Needed Services from a non-GH provider, be sure to show your GH I.D. Although you never need to give up your Medicare red, white and blue card, you must now use your GH M+C Plan card to receive Covered Services. It is important that you use only your GH M+C Plan membership card— NOT your Medicare card. A. The Provider must file claims for services rendered during the first nine (9) months of a calendar year by December 31 of the following calendar year. B. The Provider must file claims for services rendered in the last three (3) months of a calendar year the same as if the services had been furnished in the subsequent calendar year. The time limit on filing claims for services furnished in the last three (3) months of the calendar year is December 31 of the second calendar year following the calendar year in which the services were rendered. GH will notify the Member and the provider of its decision within 60 days after receipt of the claim. If the claim is denied in whole or in part, GH will provide the member a reason for the denial, and an explanation of the Member's right to appeal the denial, as set forth in Section IV. of this Agreement. 0036900-CO8410 54 See your "Medicare & You" handbook for additional information regarding filing claims, ..� which can be obtained from your local Social Security office, or your Washington State Part B carrier's office,or call 1-800-772-1213. GH may obtain information which it deems necessary concerning the medical care and hospitalization for which payment is requested. 0036900-CO8410 55 Medicare Endorsement For Persons Covered by Part B only of Medicare THE -PROVISIONS OF THE GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF THE PROVISIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS MEDICARE ENDORSEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ENDORSEMENT DUPLICATE THE BENEFITS UNDER THE GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT. THE HIGHER LEVEL OF BENEFIT WILL APPLY. COVERAGE UNDER THIS GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE AGREEMENT IS INTEGRATED WITH THE MEDICAL BENEFITS ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 18 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AS AMENDED, AND REFERRED TO AS "MEDICARE." THE BENEFITS AND EXCLUSIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS ENDORSEMENT APPLY ONLY TO MEMBERS WHO ARE COVERED UNDER PART B ONLY OF MEDICARE. Group Health Cooperative offers two types of Medicare arrangements for employer group members living in the Group Health service area: 1) If you are a member living in the service area where the Group Health Medicare +Choice plan is available you must have both Parts A & B of Medicare and be enrolled in this plan. Those r- enrolled under GITs Medicare plan, as set forth in this Endorsement may be subject to copayments. 2) If you are a member living in the service area where the Medicare+Choice plan is not available, you must still enroll in and maintain both Medicare Parts A & B in order for your employer group plan to coordinate benefits with Medicare. In order to be eligible for Part B benefits members must have been enrolled prior to January 1, 1999. Except as defined by Federal Regulations, all Members entitled to, or eligible to purchase Medicare must transfer to the GH Medicare+Choice Plan upon such entitlement or eligibility. A condition of enrollment under the GH Medicare=Choice Plan requires that a Member be continuously enrolled for the hospital (Part A) and medical (Part B) benefits available from the Social Security Administration, and sign any papers that may be required by GH or Medicare. For additional information, the Member may refer to "Medicare & You,"which can be obtained from your local Social Security office. NEITHER GH NOR MEDICARE MAY PAY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT NON-GH FACILITIES UNLESS THE MEMBER HAS BEEN REFERRED BY GH OR THE MEMBER HAS RECEIVED EMERGENCY OR URGENTLY NEEDED SERVICES OR OUT-OF-AREA RENAL DIALYSIS SERVICES ACCORDING TO SECTION V.C. OF THIS MEDICARE ENDORSEMENT OR THE MEMBER HAS RECEIVED NON-EMERGENT AND/OR NON- 0036900-CO8410 56 URGENTLY NEEDED CARE AT FACILITIES OUTSIDE THE SERVICE AREA UNDER ^� YOUR POINT-OF-SERVICE(POS)BENEFIT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION V.C. For those enrolled under the GHM+Cplan, as set forth in this Endorsement, Copayments do not apply except forprescription drugs. This Endorsement does not constitute a Medicare supplemental contract. Section I. DEFINITIONS CUSTODIAL CARE: Care furnished for the purpose of meeting non-Medically Necessary personal needs which could be provided by persons without professional skills or training, such as assistance in mobility, dressing, bathing, eating, preparation of special diets, and taking medication. Custodial Care is not covered by the GH M+C Plan or Medicare unless provided in conjunction with Skilled Nursing Care and/or skilled rehabilitation services. EMERGENCY CONDITION: A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that a prudent lay person who with an average knowledge of health and medicine could reasonably expect the absence of immediate medical attention to result in T) Serious jeopardy to the health of the individual or, in the case of a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child, 2) Serious impairment to bodily functions;or 3) Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. EMERGENCY SERVICES: Covered inpatient and outpatient services that are Runished by a "1 provider qualified to furnish emergency services needed to evaluate or stabilize an emergency medical condition. HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (HCFA): The Federal Agency responsible for administering Medicare. A1AXIMUM CHARGES: A term used to define the level of benefits which are payable by GH when expenses are incurred from a non-GH physician or provider. Expenses are considered Maximum Charges if(1) the charges are consistent with those normally charged by the provider or organization for the same services or supplies; and (2) the charges are within the general range of charges made by other providers in the same geographical area for the same services or supplies. MEDICARE: The Federal Government health insurance program established by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. MEDICARE+CHOICE (M+C) COORDINATED CARE PLANS: These are M+C Plans that use a network of providers that are under contract or arrangement with a Medicare+Choice Organization to provide covered benefits. The GHM+CPlan is a Coordinated Care Plan. MEDICARE+CHOICE (M+C) ORGANIZATION: A public or private entity organized and licensed by the State as a risk-bearing entity that is certified by HCFA as meeting M+C contract requirements. M+C Organizations can offer one or more M+C Plans. GH is an M+C Organization. 0036900-CO8410 57 MEDICARE+CHOICE PLAN: A policy or benefit package offered by a Medicare+Choice Organization under which a specific set of health benefits offered at a uniform premium and uniform level of cost-sharing to all Medicare beneficiaries residing in the service area covered by the Plan. An M+C Organization may offer more than one benefit Plan in the same Service Area. The GH Plan is an M+Cplan. OUT OF THE SERVICE AREA ALLOWANCE: This health care term is the same as Point of Service(POS). PERMANENT MOVE: A change of residence out of the service area or an uninterrupted absence of more than six(6) months from GH Service Area. POINT OF SERVICE (POS): A benefit that GH offers to its M+C Members while temporarily traveling outside of the GHM+CPlan Service Area for non-emergent and/or non- urgently needed care. In return for this flexibility, members have higher cost-sharing requirements for these services. REFERRAL: A formal recommendation by your Primary Care Physician or his/her Contracting Medical Group that you receive care from a Specialist, Contracting Medical Provider, or Non-Contracting Medical Provider. SERVICE AREA: The geographic area comprised of parts of Grays Harbor, Island, King, Kitsap, Lewis,parts of Mason, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties, and any other areas designated by GH and approved by the Health Care Financing Administration. (See Service Area Map.) SKILLED NURSING FACILITY: A facility which provides inpatient Skilled Nursing Care, rehabilitation services, or other related health services and is certified by Medicare. The term "Skilled Nursing Facility" does not include a convalescent nursing home, rest facility, or facility for the aged which furnishes primarily Custodial Care, including training in routines of daily living. URGENTLY NEEDED CONDITIONS: Covered Services provided when you are temporarily absent from the GH M+C Plan Service Area (or, under unusual and extraordinary circumstances,provided when you are in the Service Area but your Contracting Medical Group is temporarily unavailable or inaccessible) when such services are Medically Necessary and immediately required 1) as a result of an unforeseen illness, injury, or condition; and 2) it is not reasonable, given the circumstances, to obtain the services through your Contracting Medical Group. Section II. DISENROLLMENT Enrollment under the GH M+C Plan for a specific Member, may be terminated in the circumstances set forth below. Until such time as a Member's termination of enrollment from GH is effective, neither Medicare nor any other Medicare+Choice organization shall pay for services for which GH is responsible. While a Member is enrolled with GH, GH will only cover the following services provided by 0036900-CO8410 58 non-GH Providers, non-GH Facilities, or non-GH Designated Facilities: (1) Referrals authorized by a GH Provider; (2) Emergency anywhere in the world or Urgent Care, out-of-area renal dialysis services as set forth in Section V.D.; or (3) Non-Emergent and/or Non-Urgently Needed care at facilities outside the Service Area under your Point-of-Service (POS) benefits, as set forth in Section V.D. Upon termination of membership in GH, neither GH nor GH Providers shall have further liability or responsibility under this Agreement for Member's health care services. A. Involuntary Disenrollment. GH may disenroll you from the GHM+C Plan only under the conditions listed below. You will not be disenrolled due to your health status. 1. If you move permanently out of the service area and do not voluntarily disenroll or choose Continuation of coverage; 2. If your entitlement to Medicare Park A or enrollment in Part B benefits ends, 3. If you supply fraudulent information or make misrepresentations on your individual election form which materially affects your eligibility to enroll in the GHM+CPIan; 4. If you are disruptive, unruly, abusive or uncooperative to the extent that your membership in the GH M+C Plan seriously impairs our ability to arrange Covered Services for you or other individuals enrolled in the plan. Involuntary Disenrollment on this basis is subject to prior approval by HCFA; 5. You allow another person to use your GH M+C Plan membership card to obtain Covered Service; 6. You fail to pay the Plan basic Premiums. Disenrollment in this case is subject to the 90-day grace period for late payment of premiums; or 7. The contract between GH and HCFA under which the GH M+C Plan is offered is terminated, or the GHM+CPIan service area is reduced Such termination shall be subject to review and approval by HCFA. HCFA must be notified if disenrollment is due to reasons 3-5. B. Persons Hospitalized on the Date of Termination. A Member who is a registered bed patient receiving Covered Services in a GH Facility or GH Designated Facility on the date of termination shall continue to receive covered inpatient services, until discharge from the facility. This continued coverage will also apply to a Member hospitalized in a Medicare-certified non-GH Designated Facility as a result of Emergency or Urgently Needed Services or Referral as set forth in Section VI.B. of this Medicare Endorsement. C. Services Provided After Termination. Any services provided by GH after the effective date of termination (except those services covered under Section H.B. of this Medicare Endorsement) shall be charged according to the Directory of Services. The Subscriber shall 0036900-008410 59 be liable for payment of all such charges for services provided to the Subscriber and all Family Dependents. r-- Section M. SUBROGATION (COORDINATING OTHER BENEFITS YOU MAYHAVE) Who Pays First If you are age 65 or older and have coverage under an employer group plan of an employer of twenty (20) or more employees, either based on your own current employment or the current employment of a spouse, you must use the benefits under that plan. Similarly, if you have Medicare based on disability and are covered under an employer group plan of an employer of one hundred(I00) or more employees (or a multiple employer plan that includes an employer of one hundred or more employees) either through your own current employment or that of a family member,you must use the benefits under that plan. In such cases,you will only receive benefits not covered by your employer group plan through our contract with Medicare. A special rule applies if you have or develop End Stage Renal Disease(ESRD). If any no-fault or any liability insurance (or payment from a liable third party) is available to you, then benefits under that plan (or from that liable third party) must be applied to the costs of health care covered by this plan. Where we have provided benefits and a judgment or settlement is made with a no-fault or liability insurer (or liable third party), you must reimburse us. However, our reimbursement may be reduced by a share of procurement costs (e.g., attorney fees and costs). Workers' compensation for treatment of a work-related illness �- or injury should also be applied to covered health care costs by this plan. If you have (or develop) ESRD and are covered under an employer group plan,you must use the benefits of that plan for the first thirty (30) months after becoming eligible for Medicare based on ESRD. Medicare is the primary payer after this coordination period (However, if your employer group plan coverage was secondary to Medicare when you developed ESRD because it was'not based on current employment as described above, Medicare continues to be primary payer.) Because of this, we may ask you for information about other insurance you may have. If you have other insurance,you can help us obtain payment from the other insurer by providing the information. we request promptly. Coordination of benefits protects you from higher Plan Premiums. The end result is more affordable health care. Section IV. APPEAL AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A. Grievances. If a member is dissatisfied with care or services received at a Medical or Dental Office or Hospital, or a Member disputes eligibility or membership status, the Member may submit a written grievance to GH. GH will conduct a formal review and provide a written response within 60 days of the time all pertinent materials are received. B. Expedited Requests for Care or Service. 0036900-CO8410 60 1. Standard Request. The Member may request that care or a service be covered by GH on --� the basis that it is a Medicare covered service. GH will reach a decision within 14 days. GH's decision may be delayed an additional 14 days if it is in the Member's best interest or upon the Member's request. 2. If a member requests care or a service they believe is covered by Medicare and the Member believes and/or his/her physician states that a delay in making a determination about coverage could jeopardize the Member's health or ability to function, the Member may request an expedited decision. In most instances, GH will reach a decision within 72 hours. GH's decision may be delayed an additional 14 working days if it is in the Member's best interest to delay a decision or upon the Member's request. GH's decision may also be postponed in the event information for a non-GH provider has not been received in a timely manner. If GH grants a Member's request for an expedited decision, GH will orally notify the Member and follow-up within two (2) working days, with a written letter. If a Member disagrees with GH's decision not to expedite his/her request, the Member may file a grievance. C. Appeals. Members have a right to appeal any decision in which GH declines to provide, cover, or pay for services that the Member believes are covered by Medicare. If GH declines to provide or to cover a service, GH will provide the Member with a Notice of Non-coverage containing the reason(s) for the denial and an explanation of the Member's appeal rights. Members who disagree with a decision by GH may submit a written appeal to GH. Members appealing a denied claim for payment for a service already provided or arranged may request a standard 60-day appeal. Members appealing a request for a future service may ask for either a standard 30-day appeal or an Expedited (72-hour) appeal if the Member believes (or the Member's Provider states) that a delay in responding to the Member's appeal could seriously jeopardize his/her health or ability to function. Appeals will be reviewed by persons not involved in the initial decision. If GH decides to uphold the original adverse decision, either in whole or in part, the entire file will be forwarded by GH to HCFA for review. 1. Standard Appeal. a. 60-Day Appeals for Claim for Payment. A member may submit an appeal requesting a second review at any time GH denies coverage for services already provided or arranged by either GH or a non-GH provider or facility, or for future services. Member must submit appeals in writing to GH, or to any Social Security Office, or in the case of a railroad retirement annuitant, a Railroad Retirement Board Office, within 60 days of receiving notice of GH's initial decision. After receiving all pertinent materials, GH will conduct a formal review of the appeal. GH will notify the Member of its decision within 60 days of receipt. If GH decides fully in the Member's favor, GH will pay the claim(s) within 60 days of receipt of the member's appeal. If GH upholds any part of the initial denial, the entire file will be forwarded by GH to HCFA for review. HCFA will make a reconsideration decision 0036900-008410 61 and advise the Member or its decision, the reasons for the decision and the right to additional appeal rights. b. 30-Day Appeals for Denials of Future Services. A member may submit an appeal requesting a second review at any time GH denies coverage for future services. Members must submit appeals in writing to GH, or to any Social Security Office, or in the case of a railroad retirement annuitant, a Railroad Retirement Board Office, within 60 days of the date of GH's initial decision. After receiving all pertinent materials, GH will conduct a formal review of the appeal. GH will notify the Member of its decision within 30 days of receipt. GH's decision may be extended an additional 14 days if it is in the member's best interests or upon the Member's request. If GH upholds any part of the initial denial, the entire file will be forwarded by GH to HCFA's contractor, The Center for Health Dispute Resolution ("The Center") for review. The Center will make a reconsideration decision and advise the Member of its decision, the reason for the decision, and the right to additional appeal rights. 2. Filing an Expedited (72-hour) Appeal (does not apply to denied claims for payment). If a delay in receiving a decision could jeopardize the Member's health or ability to function, the Member or his/her Physician may submit a request for an expedited appeal either orally or in writing to GH. D. Immediate Peer Review Organization ("PRO") Review. �- A Member may request immediate Peer Review Organization ("PRO") review if GH denies coverage of a continued inpatient stay in a hospital on the basis of medical necessity. A Member may request immediate PRO review by phone or in writing. If a Member request PRO review by noon of the first business day after a Member has received a Notice of Noncoverage, the Member will not be financially responsible for the cost of the continued hospitalization until the PRO determination. GH will provide the Member written notice of procedures by which to request a PRO review. If a Member requests a PRO review, the Member may not pursue the Standard Appeal Procedure and/or the Expedited Appeal Procedure with respect to denial of the same hospital stay. E. Additional Appeal Rights. If HCFA upholds GH's initial determination and denies the appeal and if the amount in controversy is greater than 5100.00, the Member may request a hearing before an administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration. The Member may request a hearing before an administrative law judge by writing to GH, HCFA, or a Social Security Office within 60 days after the date of notice of an adverse reconsideration decision. If the administrative law judge denies a Member's appeal, either the Member or GH may request a review by the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council. If a Member's appeal is denied by the Appeals Council and if the amount in controversy is greater than S 1,000.00, the Member or GH may request a review by a Federal District Court. 0036900-CO8410 62 1. Home Services Continuous care services per Member in the Member's home when prescribed by a GH provider, as set forth in this paragraph. Continuous care is defined as "skilled nursing care provided in the home during a period of crisis in order to maintain the terminally ill patient at home." Continuous care may be provided for pain or symptom management by a Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Home Health Aide under the supervision of a Registered Nurse. Continuous care may be provided up to twenty-four (24) hours per day during periods of crisis. Continuous care is covered only when a GH provider determines that the Member otherwise would require hospitalization in an acute care facility. 2. Inpatient Hospice Services for short-term care shall be provided in a facility designated by GH's Hospice Program when Medically Necessary and authorized in advance by a GH provider and GI-Ts Hospice Program. Respite care is covered for a maximum of five (5) consecutive days per occurrence in order to continue care for the Member in the temporary absence of the Member's primary care-giver(s). 3. Other hospice services may include the following: a. drugs and biologicals that are used primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; b. medical appliances and supplies primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; ^+ c. counseling services for the Member and his/her primary care-giver(s); and d. bereavement counseling services for the family. B. Outpatient Mental Health Care, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Treatment Services are covered for each Member in accordance with Medicare Guidelines and may be subject to a copayment. C. Outpatient Emergency/Urgently Needed Services. When an Emergency meets the Medicare definition for Emergency or Urgently Needed Services as defined in Section I. of this Medicare Endorsement, services are covered and may be subject to a copayment. D. If the Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Facility and requires continued inpatient care GH will continue to cover the non-emergent care and services at the non-GH Facility needed by the Member to remain medically stable until: (1) the Member is discharged; (2) a GH Provider arrives and assumes responsibility for the Member's care; or (3) GH and the Member's treating physician decide the Member may be transferred without harmful medical consequences whichever occurs first. A decision to transfer the member to a GH Facility is made at the discretion of GH with the attending physician's concurrence. Post-stabilization care at a non-GH facility will be covered when: (a) Pre-approved by Group Health; or (b) Not pre-approved because Group Health did not respond to the request "1 0036900-CO8410 64 1. Home Services �-, Continuous care services per Member in the Member's home when prescribed by a GH provider, as set forth in this paragraph. Continuous care is defined as "skilled nursing care provided in the home during a period of crisis in order to maintain the terminally ill patient at home." Continuous care may be provided for pain or symptom management by a Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Home Health Aide under the supervision of a Registered Nurse. Continuous care may be provided up to twenty-four (24) hours per day during periods of crisis. Continuous care is covered only when a GH provider determines that the Member otherwise would require hospitalization in an acute care facility. 2. Inpatient Hospice Services for short-term care shall be provided in a facility designated by GH's Hospice Program when Medically Necessary and authorized in advance by a GH provider and GH's Hospice Program. Respite care is covered for a maximum of five (5) consecutive days per occurrence in order to continue care for the Member in the temporary absence of the Member's primary care-giver(s). 3. Other hospice services may include the following: a. drugs and biologicals that are used primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; b. medical appliances and supplies primarily for the relief of pain and symptom management; c. counseling services for the Member and his/her primary care-giver(s); and d. bereavement counseling services for the family. B. Outpatient Mental Health Care, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Treatment Services are covered for each Member in accordance with Medicare Guidelines and may be subject to a copayment. C. Outpatient Emergency/Urgently Needed Services. When an Emergency meets the Medicare definition for Emergency or Urgently Needed Services as defined in Section I. of this Medicare Endorsement, services are covered and may be subject to a copayment. D. If the Member is hospitalized in a non-GH Facility and requires continued inpatient care GH will continue to cover the non-emergent care and services at the non-GH Facility needed by the Member to remain medically stable until: (1) the Member is discharged; (2) a GH Provider arrives and assumes responsibility for the Member's care; or (3) GH and the Member's treating physician decide the Member may be transferred without harmful medical consequences whichever occurs first. A decision to transfer the member to a GH Facility is made at the discretion of GH with the attending physician's concurrence. Post-stabilization care at a non-GH facility will be covered when: (a) Pre-approved by Group Health; or (b) Not pre-approved because Group Health did not respond to the request 0036900-008410 64 for pre-approval within one (1) hour after being requested to approve such care, or Group Health could not be contacted for pre-approval. E. Point-of-Service (POS). Non-emergent and/or non-urgently needed care received while temporarily traveling outside GH's Medicare Service Area is payable at Medicare benefit levels up to $2,000 per member per calendar year. All Medicare non-covered expenses, including hospital inpatient deductibles and inpatient and outpatient coinsurances, are the responsibility of the member. (GH's Service Area is defined in Section L of this Agreement.) Coverage under this benefit does NOT include coverage ofprescription drugs. F. Medicare Ambulance Benefit. Medically Necessary ambulance transportation to or from a hospital or Skilled Nursing Facility is covered in full only if transportation by any other vehicle could endanger the patient's health and the ambulance, equipment, and personnel meet Medicare requirements. G. Medical and Surgical Care. The following medical and surgical services are covered when prescribed by GH Medical Personnel, Medicare requirements are met and may be subject to a copayment: 1. Eye examinations and treatment for eye pathology. Evaluations and surgical procedures to correct refractions which are not related to eye pathology are not covered. Complications related to such surgery are also excluded. 2. One pair of eyeglasses or contact lenses, including examination and fitting, following cataract surgery, are covered subject to UCR charges when required to replace the natural lens of the eye. Covered eyeglasses and contact lenses must be dispensed through GH Facilities. Replacements for Members following insertion of an intraocular lens are set forth in Section E.13. below. Replacements in the absence of an intraocular lens will be provided when needed due to change in the Member's medical condition or when deemed appropriate by a GH physician. 3. Blood, blood derivatives, and their administration. 4. Maternity and pregnancy-related services, including visits before and after birth; involuntary termination of pregnancy; and care for any other complication of pregnancy. 5. Organ transplants, limited to those covered by Medicare when all Medicare criteria have been met. 6. Physician calls (including consultations and second opinions by a GH physician) in the hospital, office,home, Skilled Nursing Facility, nursing home, or convalescent center. 7. Restorative physical, occupational, and speech therapy following illness, injury, or surgery. 8. Immunizations and vaccinations that are listed as covered in the GH Drug Formulary (approved drug list) or approved by Medicare. 0036900-CO8410 65 9. Services related to dysfunction of the jaw. When Referred by a GH physician, evaluation and treatment by a GH-approved temporomandibular joint(TMJ) care provider. All TMJ appliances, other than the occlusal splint and its fitting, are excluded. Treatment of jaw dysfunction, including TMJ dysfunction, will NOT be provided when the dysfunction is related to malocclusion or when TMJ services are needed due to dental work performed. All such services and related hospitalization, including orthodontic therapy and orthognathic (jaw) surgery, are excluded regardless of origin or cause. (See Section X.B.18. of the Group Medical Coverage Agreement for Covered Services not meeting Medicare guidelines). 10. Chiropractic care limited to spinal manipulations. Excluded are any other diagnostic or therapeutic services, including x-rays, finnished by a chiropractor. Members must receive all chiropractic services from GH's designated licensed providers in order to be covered. A list of GH-designated licensed practitioners is available by contacting any GH area medical center. 11. Podiatric care. Services are covered when all Medicare criteria are met and when authorized in advance by your Primary Care Provider. Excluded is treatment of flat feet or other misalignments of the feet; removal of coms and calluses; and routine foot.care such as hygienic care, except in the presence of a nonrelated medical condition affecting the lower limbs. Members must utilize GHs designated providers in order to be covered. 12. Home intravenous (M drug therapy services. 13. Routine eye examinations and refractions, limited to once every twenty-four(24)months, except when Medically Necessary. Services for routine eye examinations must be received at a GH Facility and in accordance with GH medical criteria in order to be covered and are not subject to Medicare requirements. Lenses. One pair of standard glass single vision, lenticular, or nonblended bifocal or trifocal lenses, or contact lenses, will be covered subject to UCR charges once every twenty-four(24) months, and replaced as specified below, when received at a GH facility and in accordance with GH medical criteria. Frames. An Allowance of up to $100 per Member once every twenty-four (24) months will be provided for frames. Replacements. Lens replacement for any reason (including loss, breakage or change in prescription) will be provided not more often than once every 24 months. Replacement of frames will be provided subject to the frames Allowance set forth above not more often than once every 24 months. 14. Hearing examinations to determine hearing loss. Hearing aids, including examinations and fitting, must be received at a GH Facility and are covered up to a maximum of$250 �— per Member once every 24 months. 0036900-CO8410 66 15. Diabetic education and training, including glucose monitors and testing strips for all diabetics. 16. Renal dialysis services required while temporarily away from the Service Area will be covered if provided in a Medicare-approved facility and if in accord with GH criteria for coverages H. Prosthetic Devices, such as cardiac devices, intraocular lenses, artificial joints, breast prostheses, artificial eyes, and braces, are covered and may be subject to a copayment. Excluded are: orthopedic shoes unless they are part of leg braces; dental plates or other dental devices; and experimental devices. I. Medical/Surgical Supplies, such as casts, splints, post-surgical dressings, and ostomy supplies, are covered and may be subject to a copayment. J. Rental or Purchase of Durable Medical Equipment, such as oxygen and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs and other walk-aids, and hospital beds, is covered and may be subject to a copayment. K Skilled Nursing Facility. Upon Referral and following a Medicare-certified three (3) day hospital stay, GH will cover up to one hundred (100) days of care in a Medicare-certified Skilled Nursing Facility, in accordance with Medicare Guidelines, when Medically Necessary, as determined by GH's Medical Director, or his/her designee. L. Health Club Services (SilverSneakers4) and/or lifetime fitness at participating network health clubs in the Service Area are provided to Members without charge. Unlimited covered services include: traditional weight and cardiac equipment,pools, aerobics, and court facilities. In addition to club member privileges, a Member may bring a guest who is Medicare eligible for one visit up to four times per year without charge. A list of participating network health clubs may be obtained from GH upon request Section VI. EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS A. Exclusions. 1. Investigational procedures, including medical and surgical services, drugs and devices until formally approved by Medicare unless specifically provided herein (See Section XI.A.10. in the Group Medical Coverage Agreement). 2. Supportive devices (shoe inserts) for the feet. 3. Services directly related to obesity except as provided by Medicare. 4. Services or supplies not specifically listed as covered by Medicare or GH. B. Limitations. Conditions and Extent of Coverage. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS V.E.10. AND V.E.11., ALL SERVICES AND BENEFITS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE 0036900-CO8410 67 PROVIDED BY GH MEDICAL PERSONNEL AT A GH OR GH DESIGNATED FACILITY UNLESS: 1. the Member has received a Referral from GH, or 2. the Member has received'outpatient Emergency or Urgently Needed Services as defined in Section I. and as set forth in Section V.C. of this Medicare Endorsement. Section VII. CLAIMS PROCEDURE Claims for services or supplies and explanation of Medicare benefits for services or supplies should be sent to: Medicare Claims, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, P.O. Box 34585, Seattle, WA 98124-1585. If you must receive Emergency or Urgently Needed Services from a non-GH provider, be sure to show your GH I.D. card.Although you never need to give up your Medicare red, white and blue card, you must now use your GH M+C Plan card to receive Covered Services. It is important that you use only your GH M+C Plan membership card — NOT your Medicare card A. The Provider must file claims for services rendered during the first nine (9) months of a calendar year by December 31 of the following calendar year. B. The Provider must file claims for services rendered in the last three (3) months of a calendar year the same as if the services had been famished in the subsequent calendar year. The time limit on filing claims for services famished in the last three (3) months of the calendar.year is December 31 of the second calendar year following the calendar year in which the services r were rendered. GH will notify the Member and Provider of its decision within 60 days after receipt of the claim. If the claim is denied in whole or in part, GH will provide the member a reason for the denial, and an explanation of the Member's right to appeal the denial, as set forth in Section IV. of this Agreement See your "Medicare & You" handbook for additional information regarding filing claims, which can be obtained from your local Social Security office, or your Washington State Part B carrier's office, or call 1-800-772-1213. GH may obtain. information which it deems necessary concerning the medical care and hospitalization for which payment is requested. 0036900-CO8410 68 GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE By: Title: President GROUP Kent, City of, #0036900 By: Title: This Agreement will become effective January 1, 2001 and will continue in effect until terminated as herein provided for. PA-113301 CA-1385 CA-6100 CA-107600 CA-1395 CA-11359 0036900-CO8410 69 CITY OF KENT Group# 00369 For attachment to Group Medical Coverage Agreement BENEFIT DESCRIPTION INSIDE THE NETWORK: MANAGED HEALTH CARE $5 Outpatient/Office Visit $5 Outpatient Prescription Drugs $50 Emergency Room No re-wdsting condition wait. MONTHLY HEALTH CARE PREMIUM: This schedule reflects Group Health Cooperative monthly premium effective January 1,2001 and guaranteed to January 1,2002. Subscriber $194.25 per month Subscriber and spouse $434.62 per month Subscriber and child(ren) $391.75 per month Subscriber and family $622.20 per month MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH CARE DUES Persons 65 and over with AB Medicare $149.61 per month Subscriber and Spouse, 1 AB Medicare $389.98 per month Subscriber and Spouse,2 AB Medicare $299.22 per month Subscriber and Child(ren), 1 AB Medicare $347.11 per month Subscriber and Family, 1 AB Medicare $577.56 per month Subscriber and Family,2 AB Medicare $486.80 per month NOTE: Medicare rates do not apply to TEFRA eligible enrollees. 12.0 percent(12%)of each month's medical dues for each member and each family enrollee,as scheduled above,is the budgeted prepayment for cost of all pharmaceuticals and prescriptions to be dispersed on written orders of the Managed Healthcare Network providers for the next fiscal year under coverage of your medical coverage agreement. Rates are quoted on a dual choice basis. Regardless of the effective date of enrollment for a Subscriber and Family Dependents,the *1 Group will not be required to submit premiums to the Cooperative for the month of enrollment, and these Members will appear on the subsequent montb's billing at the regular charge. When the Subscriber's enrollment terminates,the group will submit the full amount of premiums to the Cooperative regardless of the specific date of termination for that month. �1 GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE By: Title: President GROUP Kent, City of, #0036900 By: Title: This Agreement will become effective January 1, 2001 and will continue in effect until terminated as herein provided for. PA-113301 CA-1385 CA-6100 CA-107600 CA-1395 CA-11359 0036900-CO8410 69 *Grou Health Cooperative Group Health Network San Juan r.. �a Island - .: , rr e. 'Ha. < ^. roc �5 Y� r :ti :� +yh'-•�'i....: y 'ran > Y::•^ t. .4.,....iw'. Group Health Cooperative consists of a vast network of providers and facilities in Western Washington,Central and Eastern Washington,and North Idaho. In some areas,we own and operate our own medical and specialty centers and hospitals.These are staffed by our own physicians and other medical professionals.In other locations,we contract with participating community-based providers and facilities to provide care for Group Health members. Western Washington Central and Eastern Washington For more information about Group Health in Western and North Idaho Washington,please call our Customer Service staff at For more information about Group Health in Central 206-901-4636 in Seattle or toll-free at 1-888-901-4636. and Eastern Washington and North Idaho,please call 509-838-9100 or1-800-497-2210. .<2R>,a,.m 95GH-W10.99 71670 /X/l �— Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: EVAC-U-SPLINTS PURCHASE - AUTHORIZE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept grant funds in the amount of $1, 200 from the State of Washington and apply said funds towards the purchase of Evac-U-Splints . The Fire Department has received a $1, 200 grant from the State of Washington "for the purpose of the state trauma care system. " These funds may be used to help meet requirements to provide trauma care services, and the Fire Department proposes to use these funds to purchase Evac-U-Splints . 3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Janet Griffith, Director Office of �- Emergency Medical & Trauma Prevention 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Fire Chief Angelo (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $1 . 200 grant monies SOURCE of FUNDS : 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6H + may sr�rF c,. • c 4 O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Office of Emergency Medical and Trauma Prevention Post Office Box 47853 • Olympia, Washington 98504.7853 November 30, 2000 TO: All Verified EMS Prehospital Services. State of Washington FROM: Janet Griffith, Director 49, SUBJECT: PREHOSPITAL TRAUMA PARTICIPATION GRANTS The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you about the availability of the Trauma Care Fund prehospital participation grant for FY 01. As an active verified prehospital service in Washington's EMS and Trauma Care system, you are entitled to receive a participation grant of$1,200 for FY 01. These funds are to help you meet requirements r— to provide trauma care services as a verified EMS and Trauma prehospital service. How to Receive Funds: To receive these funds, please complete the attached survey form and the shaded areas on the Invoice Voucher, A19-2A form and return it to the Office of Emergency Medical and Trauma Prevention no later than March 31, 2001, at the address provided on the form. If your service does NOT wish to receive this grant, please acknowledge by completing the attached rejection form and return it to our office by March 31, 2001. JG Attachments r" �" i�i Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: SERVICE CLUB BALLFIELDS DONATIONS - ACCEPT AND AMEND BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director, accept the $5, 000 donation from Kiwanis Club of Kent and the $8 , 750 . 00 donation from the Kent Rotary Club designated for the Service Club Ballfield project, and amend the budget accordingly. 3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of Kiwanis Club of Kent check and copy of Kent Rotary Club check 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $5 , 000 and 58 , 750 SOURCE OF FUNDS : Kiwanis Club and Rotary Club 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6I KIWANIS CLUB OF KENT 1603 SERVICE ` o } 19-ia1250 3486 / 18214 143RD AVE SE RENTT�ONN^.WAA 98058 DATc �\ PAYW l.J�7l ' GT ��� t�-�./v�'v" • CR .D S�F1O0� ... QLAAD DOLLARS©o.0 a--,............. ' rMbank. FOR I: L 25000 L'D51: L5 3 50 50 3 26 49nm 1603 cr w W 00 - - - - - - - - - �- vi C LL y l 00 W `I Lu 0 2 GA, Lu Occ tW- f Y � Z O R W \ _ U w W CC D Y W V W 0: W Z 0- z Y El `� c¢i O LL, 3 3 Z ° o W N 44 W F W~ LL O y m wo �o 6 V O ❑ ❑ ui Q ❑ Lu 7 � -Di • 1 m r MEMO TREASURER'S RECEIPT z i- CITY OF KENT NO. M 37879 c 0 DATE 00 • ru �cn A 2 r"VENGINEERING Z -� ❑ DEPARTMENT 2-PARKS r �ounav 0 POLICE L!l zN Do r' x C ❑ DEPARTMENT ❑ OTHER : I O m±•W SPECIFY IT C N N-q REC-D.OF &/� 20J�S�+eA G/lLG-�j ' " Z �l ru 0 L" a FOR:(DESCRIPTION) VAOUNT OO -) T O ru 1 ti I .� ru R 0 co v I — c I . OJ TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED $ $,750 ;od N O r ❑ CASH $ ff'cHECK S N REC'D CASHIER CUSTOMERCOPY tV a4 O U1 0 i . �9 Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL 2001 CDBG PROGRAM FUNDS - ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Director, accept the additional funds from King County for the CDBG Program and appropriate to current programs . The City of Kent Human Services Division received an extra $95,268 from the King County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to be allocated to current programs within the City. Due to these unanticipated additional funds, staff has prepared revisions to the 2001 CDBG program budget that was adopted by City council on August 1, 2000 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Overview of proposed budget adjustments 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $96, 268 SOURCE OF FUNDS : King County CDBG 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: r ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 6J PROPOSED 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Adjusted 2001 Funds Proposed 2001 Capital Funds $472,861 Proposed 2001 Planning& Administration Funds 80,574 Proposed 2001 Public (Human) Service Funds 91,947 Total CDBG Funds: $645,382 Capital Projects City of Kent Home Repair Program $342,861 South King County Multi Service Center, Titusville Station Rehab 130,000 Total Capital $4729861 Public Human) Service Programs Kent Community Health &Natural Medicine Services $35,642 Kent Emergency Feeding Program 20,460 YWCA Domestic Violence Transitional Housing 35,845 Total Public Human Services $919947 Planning & Administration $809574 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY PLAN PUBLIC (HUMAN) SERVICES If the City of Kent receives an increase in public service estimate, the increase will be divided equally between the funded agencies. If the City of Kent receives a decrease in public service estimate, the decrease will be split proportionately between funded agencies. CAPITAL REQUESTS Any Increase or decrease to the 2001 Estimate will be through the City of Kent's Home Repair Program. r— U:Adopted4/21501 / /✓/111 IV Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: URBAN SEPARATORS - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their February 27th meeting, the Planning Committee recommended approval of text and map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and text amendments to the Subdivision Code 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: memo dated 3/20/01; Planning Committee minutes of 2/27/01, 2/5/01, and 1/8/01; City Council minutes of 12/12/00; Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 9/25/00, 10/16/00 and 10/23/00; and ordinance . Complete record is available for review in the Council Office and the Planning Services Office . 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . ) 5 . UNBUD9=ZD FISCAL/PBRSONNSL MN=1 SOUM-OF` CITY L 114'rlDii s Councilmember movits, Councilmember seconds to adopt Ordinance No. relating to Urban Separators providing for text and map .amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and text ,a' ndments to the Subdivision Code, and to rezone to SR-1 those properties within the Urban Separator that currently ar zoned higher than SR-1. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 7A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mike H. Martin, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Manager WAl HINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 March 20,2001 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE,COUNCIL PRESIDENT LEONA ORR,AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP, SENIOR PLANNER RE: URBAN SEPARATORS#CPA-2000-1 (KIVA#2002596) CAIRNES#CPA-99-3(A)/#CPZ-99-1; PACIFIC INDUSTRIES 4CPA-99-3(D)/#CPZ-99-4 At their meeting of February 27, 2001, the Planning Committee made a revised recommendation on Urban Separators. The Committee also made recommendations on the Caimes and Pacific Industries Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments that were tabled by the City Council on February 15, 2000 and referred to the Planning Committee for further consideration. The recommendations are: • Approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations for text amendments as presented in the Planning Services Division Staff Report dated September 25,2000 under Option 2B. The motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. • Approve the map amendments as shown on the map entitled "Urban Separators — Planning Committee Recommendation 2/27/01". • Rezone to SR-1 those properties within the Urban Separator that currently are zoned higher than SR-1. • Delete Policy LU-23.2 (formerly numbered LU-20.2) and replace it with the following text: "Only allow amendments to the urban separator policy at the time coinciding with King County's 20-year review of its 1994 Policy Update of the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety." • Adopt the proposed ordinance. • Approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation of DENIAL of Cairnes#CPA-99-3(A)/4CPZ-99-1. • Approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation of DENIAL of Pacific Industries #CPA-99- 3(D)/#CPZ-99-4. • Direct staff to review and recommend design criteria for clustered subdivisions, including, for example, maximum impervious surface, shared driveways, and other appropriate building and site designs. • Extend the moratorium on urban separators as appropriate to coincide with the effective date of the new urban separator policy and hold a public hearing on March 20,2001 in this regard. The details of the recommendation are listed in the ordinance found in the Council packet. Staff will be available at �. the March 20`"meeting to answer questions. A complete record is available for review with the Council Secretary. CA:S:\Permit\Plan\CompPlanAmdments\2000\2002596-2000-l cc-b.DOC SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE M EETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Charlene Anderson, Roger Lubovich, Pat Fitzpatrick,Mike Martin, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Barry Kircher,Kim Kircher, Phil Fortunato, Joe Javelli, Tim Alley,Bill Williamson,Barbara Clasen, Louise Leo, Don Clasen, Karen Johnson, Carol Cairnes, Andy Caimes,Rita Bailie, J. Gavin Miles, Geraldine Miles, Joe Miles, John Sluys, Alan Stuckey, Tom Sharp,Kurt Wilson, Bob Nelson, Greta Pfaff The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:05 PM. Approval of Minutes of February 27, 2001 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Urban Separators—Ordinance Senior Planner Charlene Anderson, in answer to questions from the January 8`h Planning Committee meeting, said a map of King County shows Urban Separators were zoned one unit per acre by King County prior to their annexation to Kent. The motion of the January 81h meeting addressed taking out of the Urban Separators those properties that drained to the west and keeping in the Urban Separators those properties that drained to the east. The properties just south of 240`h(cross street 144`h) have a ridge line running through them and drain to the west. The three westernmost properties, south of Southeast 240`h Street at approximately 140`h Avenue and originally in the Urban Separator designation, have been removed from the map. Also, the southernmost property going east to 144`h Avenue SE and the very last property both also drain to the west as opposed to the east. The map that was attached to the staff report contains the deletion changes from the Urban Separator. Another issue was the Cairnes property. Two options to accomplish what the motion entailed were written into the staff report and included in the discussion the two applications for Comp Plan and Zoning Map Amendments tabled from 1999 for the Cairnes property and the Pacific Industries property. The ordinance presented in the packet is the result of the recommendations of the January 8`h, meeting. Exhibit"B"was renumbered and the original Land Use and Planning Board recommendation which talked about Goal LU-20, etc. was changed to Goal LU-28, etc. Mr. Clark had requested a designation of the year 2012 in LU-20.2 (now 28.2). The legal department reviewed that request and changed the wording for clarification to tie it to King County's 20 year amendment. City Attorney Roger Lubovich added that even though the City adopted the King County Land Use policies from a number of years ago, it could still determine Low Density for the Urban Separators. The City would have to comply with the Urban Separator concept or policy in �.. general, but could draw its own maps. The idea of the revision to LU-28.2 was to make the review of the City's Comp Plan coincide with King County's 20 year review. The wording was changed to Planning Committee,2/27/01 2 make it clear that when the County does its 20 year review,the City would do its 20 year review in ^ ,, order to do a comprehensive review of the Urban Separator policy at the same time. Tim Clark asked what would happen with the wording should King County decide they were going to shorten the time frame. Mr. Lubovich explained that it was an expressional policy that Kent would try and coincide with King County's 20 year review,but if King County decided to do a five year review, the City might want to consider that option at that time. Rather than setting a specific date that might not coincide with King County's actual review, the wording was changed to be consistent with King County's review. The policy would not be binding as an ordinance and the City could modify it,but the only real exception would be if there were a public safety issue. Charlene Anderson said the ordinance would terminate the moratorium on development currently in effect. If the issue should go to the Council on March 20`h, and have a 30 day effective date, there would need to be a hearing on that date to extend the moratorium until the ordinance would take effect. Page 12 of the proposed ordinance deals with the previously discussed parameters for determining common open space. The Law Department adjusted the wording slightly to make the policy compatible with the intent of open space, stating that ownership could be by the residents or tenants in common of a development and does nt have to be a public dedication. Mr. Lubovich said the policy was consistent with King County's policy. Going over the changes on the map;Ms. Anderson detailed the areas that would be removed from the Urban Separator: the currently vested areas of Foxhall Subdivision,Kingsly Glen, and South Ridge Plat; and south of 240`h,the three properties that drained to the west as opposed to the east. An addition to the Urban Separator would be Soos Creek Estates. Tom Brotherton clarified the drainage issue, saying the properties that drained to the west wouldn't cause much of an impact on Soos Creek and were visually and topologically separated from the recreation area and should not properly belong in the Urban Separator. Inclusion of the fourth property at the end of 144`h had been discussed of the January 8`h meeting and was a conundrum in terms of consistency with the overall policy on drainage versus letting the property develop at a higher density than the surrounding properties. Tim Clark commented that the sole access to the property was the one road, and granting a higher density would leave all the neighbors out of sync from the patter of development of the community. In answer to Mr. Brotherton's question, Charlene Anderson said the property was approximately 2.4 acres in size and the neighborhood was zoned at SR 4.5. After further discussion, Tom Brotherton and Tim Clark agreed that 10-12 houses would be too much for the road, and the property should be left in the Urban Separator. Ms. Anderson pointed out other properties on the map currently zoned at SR-3 and SR 4.5 that were recommended in the January 8`h motion to be kept in the Urban Separator at SR-1. Tom Brotherton suggested taking out of the Urban Separator a large property north of 282nd currently zoned SR-3 and SR-6. The Land Use and Planning Board had recommended leaving the property in the Urban Separator at a higher zoning which would be inconsistent with the concept of SR-1 zoning for the Urban Separator. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom said it was important that the recommendation on Urban Separators be consistent, as different zoning would create questions about low density and the real intent of the Urban Separator. Mr. Brotherton stated that the reason Planning Committee,2/27/01 3 the properties were currently zoned at a higher density was because the area was appropriate for r development, having all the utilities, including sewer, good access to shopping, and major roads adjacent, and was also the area where a lot of the required development for the City would have to take place in the coming years. Mr. Satterstrom added that one of the main reasons the area was initially included in the Urban Separator designation by King County was because of the Soosette Creek tributaries that come together there. The environmental ordinances of the County as well as the City were in the infancy stage at that time, and when the area was annexed in 1996, the City Council adopted more stringent buffer and stream regulations for the East Hill because of the stream base and program that the County Council had adopted for Soos Creek. Tim Clark moved that policy LU-28.2 (formerly numbered LU-20.2) be deleted and replaced with the following text: "Only allow amendments to the Urban Separator policy at the time coinciding with King County's 20-year review of its 1994 Policy Update of the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety." The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved to approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation for text amendments as presented in the Planning Services Division Staff Report dated September 25, 2000 under Option 2B. The motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Tim Clark moved to approve the map amendments as shown on the map entitled Urban Separators-Planning Committee Recommendation— 1/8/01,with the following exceptions: Remove from Urban Separators the parcels in the area lying north of SE 282°d Street, north of approximately SE 284th Street, south of SE 272°d Street, and between 132°d and 144" Avenues SE that already are zoned SR-3 and/or SR-6. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods. Tim Clark made a friendly amendment to maintain in Urban Separators the Cairnes property (south of SE 264th Street, east of 148th Avenue SE) and the adjacent three properties to the west of the Cairnes property. The amendment was seconded by Judy Woods. The motion was voted on and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved to maintain as Urban Separator parcel 222205-9082. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Tim Clark moved that the properties within the Urban Separator that currently are zoned higher than SR-1 would be rezoned to SR-I. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved to approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation of DENIAL of Cairnes#CPA-99-3(A)/#CPZ-99-1. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Tim Clark asked for clarification about clustering on the Pacific Industries property. Charlene Anderson said that by denial of the Pacific Industries amendment, the property would be kept in the Planning Committee,2/27/01 4 Urban Separator at one unit per acre and would require clustering based on the text amendment. Tim Clark moved to approve the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation of DENIAL of Pacific Industries #CPA-99-3(D)/#CP2r99-4. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Roger Lubovich recommended adopting the proposed ordinance as amended, as it was ready to go pursuant to the Committee's actions except for a map amendment depicting the changes on the Caimes property and the property north of 282°a. Those changes would be corrected before the March 20`h Council meeting. Judy Woods moved to adopt the proposed ordinance as amended. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. Judy Woods moved to extend the moratorium on Urban Separators as appropriate to coincide with the effective date of the new Urban Separator policy. Tim Clark amended to have a public hearing consistent with the proposed approval date which would be March 20`h. Judy Woods accepted the friendly amendment. Tim Clark seconded the motion and it passed 3-0. Tim Clark moved to direct staff to review and recommend design criteria for clustered subdivisions, including, for example, maximum impervious surface,shared driveways, and other appropriate building and site designs. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods. In further discussion,Tom Brotherton explained that the concept was to cluster the units that could be built on a piece of property in the Urban Separator onto half or less of the available land,keeping them as far away from sensitive areas as possible and reducing the amount of impervious surface that was actually built. The idea was to keep as much land as possible in an actual state to reduce and filter the run off in order to reduce contaminants. He stated that the policy was consistent with King County's. The motion was voted on and passed 3-0. Fred Satterstrom said that Planning staff would put together a memo and map before the March 201h Council meeting to make it easier for the rest of the Council to understand the Urban Separator issue. The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary r k . Planning Committee,2/5/01 4 be an agricultural piece of land or a residential piece of land. The site plan is a conceptual r ' drawing and useful information but not necessarily relevant to a policy level decision because it's not about a contract rezone. There would be no requirement that Polygon build pursuant to the site plan. The proposal changed in terms of density after the Land Use and Planning Board had reviewed the matter, listened to public testimony and then forwarded their recommendation to committee. Polygon has modified their proposal downward to a lesser density from SR-6 to SR-4.5, and may also be representing a viewpoint of the school district that could be different from what the Land Use and Planning Board had considered. Tom Brotherton asked if the Pod H application could be tabled until after the.Agricultural Policy discussion. Roger Lubovich said a recommendation could be made to the Council to table the matter without remanding it back to the Land Use &Planning Board. Tim Clark retracted his former motion. He moved to table the Pod H application until there was further information on the AG Land. The motion was seconded by Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separator Framework Policy Judy Woods moved to reconsider the January 18, 2001 Planning Committee recommendation on Urban Separator Framework Policy, #CPA-2000-1. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark and passed 3-0. !-� The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 08, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Tom Brotherton, Judy Woods, Tim Clark STAFF PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom,Pat Fitzpatrick, Charlene Anderson, Tom Brubaker, Kim Adams-Pratt, Mike Martin, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Keith Dearborn,Tom Sharp,Karen Johnson, Louise Lea, Greta Pfaff, S. Robert Pfaff,Kurt Wilson, Carol Caimes, Tim Alley, Dave Prutzman, Rita Bailie, Geraldine Miles, Gavin Miles, Barbara Clasen, Don Clasen, Joe Miles, Bill H. Williamson, Joseph Jovelli, Alan Stuckey The meeting was called to order by Chair Tom Brotherton at 4:02 PM. Approval of Minutes of December 11. 2000 Committee Member Tim Clark moved to approve the minutes of December 11, 2000. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Judy Woods and passed 3-0. Urban Separator Framework Policy Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom opened the discussion by saying the full Council had referred the Urban Separator Framework Policy issue back to the Planning Committee because of its policy impact on the City. The Urban Separator is a.land use issue about the density of mostly residential land and an environmental issue because it may deal with environmentally sensitive areas. It is also an issue of Kent's right to do land use planning within its own jurisdictional boundaries, and the regional policy ramifications in conjunction with that right. The Land Use and Planning Board looked at the land use implications and took extensive public testimony in a lengthy public review process. The recommendation has been forwarded to the Planning Committee for clarification before taking it back to the full City Council for final resolution. Senior Planner Charlene Anderson summarized the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation. She indicated a display map showing the King County designated Urban Separator areas, and said the Board recommended keeping those designated areas as Urban Separators with a few exceptions of some deletions and additions. In Exhibit D, the "D" stands for those properties to be deleted from the Urban Separator. Two vested plat applications, Kingsley Glen at 144th and the large South Ridge Plat, were recommended for deletion, as well as an area at the upper tip called Foxhall Short Plat, and a square area at 124`h and 282Id at the northeast corner that is already surrounded by platted properties. All of the "D" areas are either vested plats or have already been developed. Exhibit C, designation"A" stands for an added parcel that currently has the manufactured mobile home park of Soos Creek Estates on it, and is partly in the flood zone attached to Big Soos Creek. The mobile home park is grandfathered,but should any future "* development occur, it would be subject to the Urban Separator designation. In Exhibit B, the "D" area is currently developed as a plat and is an extension of Ridgefield Estates. Planning Committee Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 2 Those are the areas mapwise that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended for �... addition or deletion. The other areas would be maintained as Urban Separator as originally designated by King County, including any areas in Kent's potential annexation area. Ms. Anderson reviewed Policies LU-20.1 through LU-20.8, which are the goals and policies for Urban Separators that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended to be placed in the Comprehensive Plan. LU-20.2 was amended by the Land Use and Planning Board from the staff recommendation of 5-year updates to not allow amendments to the Urban Separators except at the end of the 20 year period granted by the Growth Management Act for review of Comp Plans. That would put Kent in compliance with other adjacent jurisdictions in King County, and Kent could update its plan at the same time those jurisdictions would update their plans. The first review would be in 2012. Page 10, Zoning Code Amendments, looks at clustering,which would require zoning code and subdivision code amendments. It was originally assumed that the Urban Separators would all be designated SR-1 and that within the SR-1 lands there could be clustered subdivisions. 50% of a particular parcel would automatically be placed in an open space area most adjacent to the critical areas in an Urban Separator. Within the remaining 50% of the land, lot sizes could go down to 2,500 square feet and flexibility would be allowed for a clustered subdivision to provide the developer with as much density as would have been provided under SR-1, despite sensitive areas and open space requirements. Page 11 continues with the Zoning Code Amendment proposing that the - "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. " Those specifications are consistent with what's allowed now in King County rural areas for clustering, which requires clustering in the one unit per acre designation Urban Separator. The Subdivision Code Amendments reiterate the same requirements. One key difference in the staff report's Location criteria and the recommendation of the Land Use & Planning Board is that the Board recommended that the zoning not change in the mapped areas for Urban Separators. The staff criteria says "The cluster residential development option shall be permitted only in the SR-1 zoning district ..." The staff report was written before it was known that the LUPB wanted to keep the existing zoning, so it was assumed that only SR-1 would be in the Urban Separator area. Some clarification may be needed with the clustering issue as the Comp Plan is at SR-1 density but the zoning is greater. The perceived intent of the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation was to apply clustering to all of the Urban Separator areas,but the way it was written it is applied only to the SR-1 areas. Tom Brotherton asked what the implications would be of having SR-1 in the Comp Plan and other SR zone designations in the actual zoning. Charlene Anderson said the Growth Management Act requires consistency, and having a one unit per acre designation on the Comp Plan but a higher zoning was not consistent. Fred Satterstrom commented that r^ over half of the area designated Urban Separator was retained in a low density zoning by Planning Committee Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 3 the City after annexation,however there were cases where properties that were further away from the creek were evaluated,property by property, and given a higher density zoning through the annexation zoning process. The City's evaluation took into consideration environmental constraints, the location of the property near utilities, how ready it was for development, and how constrained the area was. Much of that area along the creek still remains in a low density designation, but substantial portions of the Urban Separator are designated over one unit per acre and some properties go as high as six units per acre as a consequence of the evaluation. Ms. Anderson explained that she had forgotten to do the deletions and additions on the map and the original King County map designations were represented with City of Kent zoning. Zoning Map 1 shows a large part zoned SR-4.5, which continues into the Ridgefield area and the property west of that. Further toward the creek, the land is zoned SR-1, and that would stay SR-1 per the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation. On Map 2, added property to the east of Lake Meridian is designated as MHP. The rest of the properties to the north and south are zoned SR-1 until just north of SR18 and to the west of Soos Creek where there is some SR-3 density area. That was recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board to stay at SR-3 with an Urban Separator designation. Zoning Map 3 shows areas zoned SR-6, SR-3, and SR-1. A SR-4.5 area is proposed for deletion. Tom Brotherton said he was confused by the designation of low density when all the zones were a higher number. Ms. Anderson said the King County policy stipulated Urban Separators as low density areas set at one unit per acre. Council can either accept or reject that policy. The Law Department memo from the Growth Management Hearing Board and case law shows there have been four unit per acre designations for compact urban development, so low density may be defined as lower than four units per acre. The areas with vested applications would stay at their current zoning designations and are shown as "D" on the Exhibit maps. Judy Woods moved to approve the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations for text and map amendments as presented in the Planning Services Division 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. 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 wherebv there would be no rezoning 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. The motion was seconded by Tim Clark. Planning Committee Minutes, 1/8/01 Page 4 Tim Clark offered a friendly amendment to specify the year 2012 as the year to r- allow amendments to the Urban Separator policy under the 20 year period. Mr. Clark made a second amendment to make the Cairnes property consistent with the density of its surrounding neighborhoods. The amendments were accepted by Judy Woods. Ms. Woods suggested making the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map consistent at SR-1 even though that would be in conflict with the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation. Tim Clark and Tom Brotherton both concurred. Mr. Brotherton mentioned properties along 240'' that he would like to exclude from the Urban Separator area. The properties are situated on the far side of the ridge line from Soos Creek and drain to the west, not east towards Soos Creek. Based on the City's testing, those properties do not belong in the Urban Separator as they are surrounded on three sides by high density development and are served by utilities. Tim Clark moved to delete those properties on Zoning Map 1 to the west of the ridge line, thereby not draining into the Soos Creek area, as properties to be dropped, and to leave it to staff for analysis of what is appropriate. Judy Woods seconded the motion. Fred Satterstrom said that analysis would come back at the time the issue goes to the full Council. Tom Brotherton expressed that he was concerned that the issue of clustering was not clear since the motion from the Land Use &Planning Board indicated clustering would r` be in SR-1 areas only but recommends leaving the areas that are not SR-1 as they are. Clustering could be interpreted as only being applied to those areas that are currently SR- 1. Mr. Brotherton stated it should be applied to all the properties within the Urban Separator. Charlene Anderson said the policy would only need a change if the existing zoning of SR-3 and SR-6 were kept. Deputy City Attorney Tom Brubaker pointed out that King County's Countywide Planning Policies were not regulations, mandates, or comprehensive plan issues,but a planning document. Those policies created the Urban Separator designation that was zoned low density/one unit per acre before the area was annexed to the City. The policy was passed by King County and endorsed by the City of Kent. The actual zoning designation was not part of the policy. The City has the authority under the law to amend the King County Urban Separator map and density and make it fit what is appropriate for the City. However, a density standard needs to be identified that can be uniformly applied so the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the zoning designation. A case at the Growth Management Hearings Board said minimum density would be four units per acre for compact urban development. It would not be inconsistent with the Urban Separator designation to say minimum density would be four units per acre or less, however it could not be higher than that. The same case also says density of one unit for every 2'/2 acres is urban in nature. Charlene Anderson clarified that the SR-6 areas in the Urban Separator designation would be rezoned to SR-1 according to the current proposal. Those areas that have r Planning Committee Minutes, 1/8101 Page 5 vested applications would be deleted entirely from the Urban Separator designation so the issue of zoning would be nonexistent. Tom Brubaker questioned if all the properties currently marked SR-3, SR-6, and SR-4.5 would all go down to SR-1. Tom Brotherton said they would in the Urban Separators. Fred Satterstrom asked for further clarification on whether the Cairnes property should be made consistent with its neighbors, which are zoned SR-2. Tom Brotherton commented that since the density was already built up at SR-2 in that particular area, it would be appropriate for the Cairnes property to be designated SR-2 density. Fred Satterstrom said that,based on the motion, the property would show up as SF-1 if it remained in the Urban Separator. The motion could direct staff to change it to SR-2. Tom Brotherton suggested removing the Caimes property from the Urban Separator. The meeting was opened for citizen comments: Don Clasen, 13602 SE 282Id Street, said the Urban Separator could have a drastic effect on his property if the proposed action was taken. It is totally inconsistent with results of the exhaustive public hearing process which came down to the single focal issue of not trampling on or taking away the property rights of property owners in the City. The Land Use and PIanning Board considered all the issues,but the focus of the discussion of the Board's decision and recommendation was the single issue of damage and adverse impact that down-zoning would have on property owners. As a result of the input and testimony of the citizens, the Board unanimously recommended a policy that encompasses the County's Urban Separator goals and their achievement without drastically harming the citizens. The policy recommended by the Board ensures and strengthens the achievement of county Urban Separator goals, which are already achievable under existing City ordinances. Tom Brotherton asked Mr. Clasen if his property was zoned one unit per acre when it was in the county. Mr. Clasen said the area was zoned R-3 to R-4.5 and the zoning went up and down. Notification never came from the City that the property had been down- zoned, and it had never been zoned R-1. Mr. Brotherton asked Mr. Clasen if he knew about the Urban Separator and its one unit per acre designation. Don Clasen said he knew nothing about Urban Separators until the policy process started in September. He went through two rezoning applications with the City, and the City did not mention Urban Separators, nor had the county. Mr. Clasen said he and his wife have a large parcel of land zoned now at R-6. Mr. Clasen implored the Committee to not impact people by taking away their property rights and retirements, and to enact a policy that was fair and equitable to the citizens of the City. He said a few people should not be made to pay for achieving visual vistas, recreation,parks, etc., and contended that the Friends of Soos Creek and other citizens would not want him and other affected people to pay for those kinds of things without compensation. He urged the Committee to respect the public hearing process and the recommendation of the Board, and to do what was right. The properties do not have to be down-zoned in order to achieve the goals of the Urban Separators. ^, Planning Committee Minutes, 118l01 Page 6 Bill H. Williamson spoke on behalf of the Pfaff property,pointing the property out on Zoning Map 3. Tom Brotherton clarified for Mr. Williamson that that particular property had been taken out of the Urban Separators. Joe Miles, Friends of Soos Creek Park, expressed concern with the motion in regards to the Caimes amendment. He pointed out the Caimes property on Exhibit C, and said he strongly feels that the amendment is inconsistent with the intent and spirit of the Urban Separator policy. The Caimes property is about one acre in size,,consistent with the size of the surrounding parcels: The three homes immediately to the west are all located next to the street. The Caimes property is right next to the right of way line for the trail and if it is divided up, there will be high density right next to the trail. Tom Brotherton reminded Mr. Miles that the "high" density would be only two units per acre. Joe Miles continued that going over one unit per acre would be completely inconsistent with the entire spirit of the Urban Separator policy under the argument that the surrounding neighborhood was higher density. The existing homes nearby are all located by the street, not by the trail. He urged rejection of the amendment. Tom Sharp, 24254 14') d Ave. SE, Kent, presented.a handout concerning his property on 240`h Street. He said he did understand that his property had been deleted from the Urban Separator,but could not understand why it had been a part and why he had not known about it. Mr. Sharp handed out materials from his attorney, Keith Dearborn, that included more information going back to the 1991 Soos Creek Basin Plan and Soos Creek Community Plan. Tom Brotherton spoke to his concern about the possibility of damage to an individual property and the fact that the City's recommended policy could be causing more impact to people than the county's policy. He stated he was surprised that Mr. Clasen's property had not been zoned SR-1 by the county. Fred Satterstrom interjected that he did not think Mr. Clasen's statement was correct about the zoning on his property,but would be willing to research the issue. All of the evidence thus far suggests that the property in question was either zoned one acre or lower density. The zoning in King County did bounce back and forth and shortly before annexation of Meridian, the county had an interim zoning of GR-2.5 which meant one unit per 2 '/s acres. That was rezoned just prior to annexation into the City of Kent. The motion was voted on as amended and passed 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary Kent City Council Minutes December 12 , 2000 STREET VACATION Street, as recommended by the Public Works Committee and upon concurrence of the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E) Green/Duwamish And Lake Washington/Cedar River Interlocal Agreements. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Green/Duwamish and Lake Washington/Cedar River Interlocal Agreements upon concurrence with the language therein by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director. These agreements will provide the management structure and funding mechanism to successfully complete the development of the Salmon Conservation Plans, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6P) Pacific Gateway BSI Park Final Plat FSU-99-1. APPROVAL ..� of the staff ' s recommendation of approval with condi- tions 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 . URBAN SEPARATORS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) Urban Sevarator Framework Policy Amendment CPA-2000-1. 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. Charlene Anderson, Senior Planner, explained the history of the project and recommended, because of the complexity of the issue, that it be sent to the Planning Committee for further discussion. 4 �n_. 12112100 Kent City Council Minutes December 12, 2000 URBAN SEPARATORS BROTHERTON MOVED to forward the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation to the City Council Planning Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council . Yingling seconded. Joe Miles, Friends of Soos Creek Park, spoke in support of the recommendation and noted that the lack of a consistent zoning of one home per acre in the urban separator still needs work. Brotherton noted that this issue will be discussed at the next committee meeting, which will be held at 4 : 00 p.m. on January 8th. His motion then carried. TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G) Telecommunications Services Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to finalize and sign a multi-year agreement for communications services with Focal r^ 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 . CABLE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6M) Public Access Studio., 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 . LAW (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6X) Public Defense Services Agreement. AUTHORIZATION to finalize and enter into an agreement with Stewart Beall & MacNichols for Public Defense Services . The law firm currently contracts with the City to provide legal services to indigent defendants in the City of Kent and �-� the Agreement expires on December 31, 2000 . � . C. Y111yL iz112160 5 PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 \4147 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 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 #1. • Monica M. Leavitt submitted e-mail addressed to the City of Kent dated October 20, 2000 for the record as Exhibit #.2. • The Rainier Audubon Society submitted a letter dated October 18,2000 for the record as Exhibit #3. • 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,28449144th 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, stone 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 inability to develop their land. 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 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. 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 r1 Jon 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 Sth 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 R4.5 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. Faith Imlay,24625148th 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. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to accept all Exhibits submitted for the record. Motion CARRIED. 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 downzoning 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 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 6 r^ 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 Snoqualmie 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. Mr.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. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes ` October 23, 2000 Page 8 Jon Johnson MOVED to amend Mr. Hannon'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 of pending danger or public safety. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. Motion CARRIED. Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p,m. Respectfully Submitted, F ed N. Satterstrom,AICP ecretary PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager400 --� Phone:253-856-5454 \S7 ENT 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 C f Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16,2000 Page 2 ienton 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 Eliibit #1 and an E-mail letter received from Mr. Len Elliott on September 25, 2000 supporting Option 2A for the record as Eslu tii#23 Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, submitted an October 16, 2000 memorandum from the City of Kent Legal department for the record as Exhibit WN 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. r— 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 Boar 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 Boatru\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 Ezlubit" 4. 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 --1 addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board for the record as Exhbit' 5 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 5 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 Eihfhit:#61 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 gage "Summary of Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future"report for the record as E iux bit#7 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 Boara 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 Ex iibl 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 Exlibf#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.,.mutes October 16,2000 Page 8 .ncouraged 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 Iocal 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 Boar 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.Yiinutes October 16,2000 Page 10 1"� 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 Ei}ibif? 0. 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 Washington Administrative Code, WAC 365-195-420 Identification of Open Space Corridors for the record as EiSi`It`+ 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 LMUChevron 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 Boar-.iinutes 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 2B, 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 Cord!, 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 Bo at(I.Minutes October 16,2000 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 Exhibits 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 ecretary PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager Phone:253-856-5454 K E N T Fax: 253-856-6454 w.s H i n o r o N 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 Mu,-.es 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#1574"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 Caimes 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 Mn._.es September 25,2000 Page 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 "1 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 Mln4Les t f September 25,2000 Page 4 Ms.Anderson stated that staff proposes the following options: • Option 1 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 282"d Street between 132°a and 144t°,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 l tea 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. ^1 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 Use and Planning Board h,, ..iteo 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 i— 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 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 120 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 K3 ibiY. #1. 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 aliibitLL#2. 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 Exhibit#3. 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 ahibit 4#4# . Land Use and Planning Board Ni,,.,.ce ` f 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 r-- 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 13,_._.e;. .. ' 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 Ezh bid 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 Eachitii . 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 Exhiblt't 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 term "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�._..at. September 25,2000 Page 10 r^ Bob Nelson, 24048 156tb 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 Kuehlthau, 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,24430148th 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. L y , Land Use and Planning Board b.___ .e. _ `F 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 defined. 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington: (1) amending the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan by adding a new goal and new policies to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan relating to urban separators; (2) amending the Comprehensive Plan's land use map by establishing urban separator designations; (3) amending the zoning map by establishing zoning designations for urban separators; (4) amending the subdivision code set forth in Title 12 of the Kent City Code relating to clustering of development in urban separators; (5) amending the zoning code set forth in Title 15 of the Kent City Code relating to zoning of land in urban separators; and (6) terminating the moratorium on the acceptance of applications for land use permits or approvals for property located in urban separators. WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, two (2) 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; and WHEREAS, the issue of urban separators was discussed during the Planning Committee meetings of March 6, 2000, April 3, 2000, May 1,2000, and June 5, 2000; and 1 Urban Separators WHEREAS, on May 1, 2000, the Planning Committee voted to forward a .� recommendation to the full City Council to recognize the urban separator framework policy but to allow for local flexibility in identifying lands which would fulfill the objectives of the Countywide Planning Policy LU-27; and WHEREAS, the City Council held meetings on June 6, 2000, and July 5, 2000, to discuss this issue and on July 5, 2000, voted to forward certain principles and guidelines to the Land Use and Planning Board for consideration and inclusion in the comprehensive plan and zoning code as appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act and Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code authorize the City of Kent to amend its Comprehensive Plan only once per calendar year except in the case of an emergency; and WHEREAS,under Section 12.02.035 of the Kent City Code an emergency is defined as an issue of community-wide significance that promotes the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000,the City Council of the City of Kent passed Resolution No. 1574 which declared an emergency pursuant to Chapter 12.02 KCC and authorized an amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan relating to urban separators; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2000, notification of the proposed change was sent to the State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development, with copies to other state agencies pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106(3), and the required 60-day notification period has expired; and 2 Urban Separators WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000, October 16, 2000, and October 23, 2000, the Land Use and Planning Board held public hearings on proposed comprehensive plan, subdivision code, zoning code, and zoning map amendments relating to urban separators; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2000, the Land Use and Planning Boards' recommendations were referred to the City Council who in turn referred the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations to the Planning Committee; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2001, the Planning Committee considered the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations,made minor changes to the same, and has forwarded its recommendations to the full Council for its consideration; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2001, the Council Planning Committee reconsidered its earlier recommendation to the full Council and voted to accept the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation with minor changes; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2001, the Planning Committee voted to forward the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations, as amended, onto the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the full City Council, after considering the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations, the recommendations of the Planning Committee,the testimony and information presented, and having considered all relevant material, finds that 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 areas or corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational, or wildlife benefits; and 3 Urban Separators WHEREAS, the City Council also finds that cluster development in urban separator areas permits greater flexibility in design and discourages development sprawl; facilitates the economical and efficient provision of public services; provides a more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural characteristics; and preserves more usable open space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 3222 and subsequently amended, is hereby amended by: (1) amending the narrative language to the "Natural Resources Goals and Policies," of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by adding new language to said narrative as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and (2) by adding Goal LU-28 and Policies LU-28.1 through LU-28.8 to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 3222 as subsequently amended, is fizrther amended to establish new plan designations for urban separators as depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit"C" and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. The City of Kent zoning map is hereby amended to establish a new zoning map designation for urban separators of Single-Family Residential (SR-1) as depicted in the map attached hereto as Exhibit"C." 4 Urban Separators SECTION 4. Section 12.04.025 of the subdivision code set forth in the Kent City Code, entitled "Definitions," is hereby amended to read as follows: See. 12.04.025. Definitions. The following words,terms and phrases,when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Active recreation activities shall mean all outdoor recreational activities which involve field and court games. Alley shall mean a public or private way not more than thirty(30) feet wide at the rear or side of property affording only secondary means of vehicular or pedestrian access to abutting property. Block shall mean a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within well-defined and fixed boundaries. Clustering or Cluster Subdivision shall mean 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. Common open space shall mean a parcel or parcels of land or an area of water or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a subdivision or a planned unit development, and designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents of a subdivision. Common open space may contain such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of residents of the subdivision. Community park shall mean a park that serves the entire city of Kent and can be located throughout the city. Community parks may have facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city, and which can include boating, swimming, fishing, athletic fields, group picnic shelters, play equipment, hard courts, skateparks, and trails, and will vary at each park. Access to the park is by car, public transit, foot or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided. 5 Urban Separators Comprehensive plan shall mean the document, including maps, adopted by the city council, which outlines the city's goals and policies relating to management of growth, and prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The term also includes adopted subarea plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. County auditor shall mean that person as defined in Chapter 36.22 RCW or the office of the person assigned such duties under the King County Charter. Cul-de-sac shall mean a short street having one (1) end open to traffic and being terminated at the other end by a vehicular turnaround. Dedication shall mean a deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for any general and public uses, reserving to himself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat or a final short plat showing the dedication thereof; and the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing by the city. Division of land shall mean the subdivision of any parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels. Final approval shall mean the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the King County auditor and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this chapter. Final plat shall mean the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the King County auditor and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this chapter. Hearing examiner shall mean the person appointed by the mayor, or his or her designee, to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in Ch. 2.32 KCC which creates the hearing examiner, and who prepares a record, findings of fact and conclusions on such applications. Hillside subdivision shall mean a subdivision in which any lot in the subdivision has average slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent and in which any street in the subdivision has grades greater than seven(7)percent at any point. 6 Urban Separators Homeowners association shall mean an incorporated nonprofit organization operating under recorded land agreements though which: 1. Each lot owner is automatically a member; 2. Each lot is automatically subject to a proportionate share of the expenses for the organization's activities, such as maintaining common property; and 3. A charge if unpaid becomes a lien against the property. Land use and planning board shall mean that body as defined in the Kent City Code. Lot shall mean a parcel of land of at least sufficient size to meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are required in this title. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street, or on an approved private street, and may consist of: 1. A single lot of record; 2. A portion of a lot of record; 3. A combination of complete lots of record and portions of lots of record; or 4. A parcel of land described by metes and bounds; provided, that in no case of division or combination shall any residual lot or parcel be created which does not meet the requirements of this title. Lot, corner shall mean a lot abutting upon two (2).or more streets at their intersection or upon two (2) parts of the same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees within the lot lines. Lot,frontage shall mean the front of a lot which shall be that portion nearest the street or, if the lot does not abut a street, the portion nearest an ingress/egress easement. On a corner lot, the front yard shall be considered the narrowest part of the lot that fronts on a street, except in industrial and commercial zones, in which case the user of a comer lot has the option of determining which part of the lot fronting on a street shall become the lot frontage. r^ 7 Urban Separators Lot line adjustment shall mean the adjusting of common property lines or boundaries between adjacent lots,tracts,or parcels for the purpose of rectifying.a disputed property line location, freeing such a boundary from any differences or discrepancies or accommodating a minor transfer of land. The resulting adjustment shall not create any additional lots, tracts, or parcels and all reconfigured lots, tracts, or parcels shall contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for zoning and building purposes. Lot lines shall mean the property lines bounding the lot. Lot measurements shall mean: 1. The depth of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance between the foremost points of the side lot lines in front and the rearmost points of the side lot lines in the rear. 2. The width of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines; provided, however, that width between side lot lines at their foremost points where they intersect with the street line shall not be less than eighty(80) percent of the required lot width except in the case of lots on the turning circle of cul-de-sacs,where eighty(80)percent requirements shall not apply. Lot of record shall mean a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the office of the King County assessor, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been so recorded. Lot, through shall mean a lot that has both ends fronting on a street. Either end may be considered the front. Meander line shall mean a line along a body of water intended to be used solely as a reference for surveying. Neighborhood park shall mean a park that serves a neighborhood (not a subdivision), defined by arterial streets. These parks are generally located centrally in the neighborhood so that the park is easily accessible and neighborhood residents do not have to cross a major arterial to reach the park. Access is primarily by foot or bicycle, so the park is usually no further than one-half mile from any point in the neighborhood. Parking 8 Urban Separators spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is not available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual activities that are not programmed or organized, or for which a fee is charged. Amenities include play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts (basketball, tennis),walking trails, and open grassy areas. Official plans shall mean those maps, development plans, or portions thereof, adopted by the city council as provided in chapter 44, section 6, Laws of 1935, as amended. Such plans or maps shall be deemed to be conclusive with respect to the location and width of streets, public parks, and playgrounds and drainage rights-of-way as may be shown thereon. Park open space shall mean those areas that are environmentally sensitive,wildlife habitat, or wetlands, that remain in a relatively natural state with minimal improvements for public access, interpretation, study or enjoyment. Park service area shall mean those areas defined by arterial streets or geographic features, and which are identified in the comprehensive park and recreation plan, that a neighborhood park or community park is intended to serve. Performance bond or guarantee shall mean that security which may be accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made before the final plat is approved and signed, including performance bonds, escrow agreements and other similar collateral or surety agreements. Piggyback or accumulative short subdivision shall mean multiple short subdivision of contiguous land under common ownership. Ownership for purposes of this section shall mean ownership as established at the application submittal date of the initial short subdivision approval. Plat shall mean a map or representation of a subdivision, showing thereon the division of a tract or parcel of land into lots,blocks, streets and alleys or other divisions and dedications. Preliminary approval shall mean the official favorable action taken on the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision, metes and bounds description or dedication, by the hearing examiner following a duly advertised public hearing or on a preliminary 9 Urban Separators plat of a short subdivision following a duly advertised meeting of the short subdivision committee. Preliminary plat shall mean a neat and precise scale drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks and other elements of a plat or subdivision which shall furnish a basis for the approval or disapproval of the general layout of a subdivision. Roadway shall mean that portion of a street intended for the accommodation of vehicular traffic, generally within curblines. Short plat shall mean the map or representation of a short subdivision. Short subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into nine(9) or fewer lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Short subdivision, type I shall mean the division of land into four(4) or less lots, 1 tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Short subdivision, type II shall mean the division of land into more than four(4) and less than ten (10) lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Street shall mean a public way thirty(30) feet or more in right-of-way width which affords a primary means of access to property. 10 Urban Separators Subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into ten(10) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease or transfer of ownership; provided, that subdivisions of less than ten (10) parcels may be.defined as short subdivisions. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Subdivision,phased shall mean a subdivision, which is developed in increments over a period of time. Tentative plat shall mean a map drawn in accordance with the same requirements as the preliminary plat map, but submitted prior to preliminary plat submittal. Tract shall mean a parcel of land proposed for subdivision or subdividing. Trail system shall mean those pathways that connect points of interest, parks, community facilities, streets, residences, etc. in the community, which are generally not confined within the limits of one park. Trails are intended to be used by bicycles, i-. rollerskaters, and pedestrians; they are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles. Urban sgparators shall mean 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. SECTION S. A new section, Section 12.04.263, is hereby added to the subdivision code set forth in the Kent City Code to read as follows: Sec. 12.04.263. Clustering. A. All Type I short subdivisions in the SR-1 zoning district shall be required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the property is located wholly or partially within an urban separator as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 11 Urban Separators B. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in Title 15 of the Kent City Code. These standards include minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks,parking, landscaping, signage, etc. C. The provisions of KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.255, as well as other applicable portions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered Type I short subdivisions: 1. Location: The cluster residential development shall be required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas. 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 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. 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 non-constrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the 12 Urban Separators non-constrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas,connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. Critical 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 strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas,rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the �— clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the City with the City's consent and approval or to another party upon approval of the City of Kent. SECTION 6. A new section, section 12.05.578, is hereby added to the subdivision code set forth in the Kent City Code to read as follows: Sec. 12.05.578. Clustering. A. All Type 11 short subdivisions in the SR-1 zoning district shall be required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the property is located within or contains an urban separator as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 13 Urban Separators B. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in Title 15 of the Kent City Code. These standards include minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signage, etc. C. The provisions of KCC 12.04.545 through 12.04.570, as well as other applicable provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered Type II short subdivisions: 1. Location: The cluster residential development shall be required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas. 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 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. 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 non-constrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the 14 Urban Separators non-constrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas,connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. Critical 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 strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the �-. clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the City with the City's consent.and approval or to another party upon approval of the City of Kent. SECTION 7. A new section, section 12.04.778, is hereby added to the subdivision code set forth in the Kent City Code to read as follows: See. 12.04.778. Clustering. A. All subdivisions in the SR-1 zoning district shall be required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the property is located within or contains an urban separator as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 15 Urban Separators B. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in Title ..� 15 of the Kent City Code. These standards include minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signage, etc. C. The provisions of KCC 12.04.745 through 12.04.770, we well as other applicable provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered subdivisions: 1. Location: The cluster residential development option shall be required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas. 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 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. 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 non-constrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the non- 16 Urban Separators constrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by clustering-shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. Critical 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 strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the City with the Cit}rs consent and approval or to another party upon approval of the City of Kent. SECTION 8. A new section, section 15.02.073, is hereby added to the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.073. 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. 17 Urban Separators SECTION 9. Section 15.02.531 of the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code, entitled"Use,"is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.53472. Use. Use means an activity for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased. SECTION 10. A new section, section 15.02.531, is hereby added to the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.531. 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. -� SECTION 11. Section 15.02.532 of the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code, entitled"Use, change of," is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.02.53-23. Use, change of. A change of use shall be determined to have occurred when it is found that the general character of the operation has been modified. This determination shall include review of but not be limited to: (1) hours of operation, (2) materials processed or sold, (3) required parking, (4) traffic generation, (5) impact on public utilities, (6) clientele, and (7) general appearance and location. 18 Urban Separators SECTION 12. Section 15.04.170 of the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code, entitled "Agricultural and residential zone development standards," is hereby amended to read as follows: 19 Urban Separators ec. 15.04.170. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards. Zoning Districts m a C t t � R 3 a H m 2^ a E o d d d ar tr m d > d m m m 'E ar d D L` m m 2 d E E m x a > -2 o � SZ+ 4 0_: rn (n W V) N_ t0 C7 x tY K rY x Q Q w rQ h W w a) f SF Duplex SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF Maximum 1 1 2.18 3.63 4.53 6.05 8.71 8.71 10.89 12.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 1623.0 23 40.0 40 density:dwelling dulac dWac duslac uslae duslac duslac uslae duals duslac duslac duslac duslacduslac dusdac duals duslac dustac uslax duslac units per acre Minimum lot 34,700 1 ac 34,7D016,000 9,600 7,600 5,700 4,000 4,000 0,000 none 8,000 ,5Dw none 8,000 ,5001 none 8,000 8,5001 none 8,000 8,5001 none sODII 8,5001 area:square feet sq ft III sq k sq ft sq ft III sq ft sq It sq ft sq it 3,500 sq ft 3,5D0 sq it 2,500 sq ft 1,600 sq it goo sq or acres,as sq ft sq ft sq ft, sq @ it(3) noted 1 (27) (1) (2) Minimum lot sort 60 ft 50 ft Soft 50 it 50 ft 40 it 401 soft 4" 80 it 80 ft 4041 11 ft loft 4" 80 It 80 ft 4" 80 It 90 It 4" 80 It 8011 width:feet(4) 1 25 ft 2511 25t1 25 it 2511 25 it Maximum site 30% 50% 30% 30% 45% 45% 50% 55% 55% 40% 55% 40% 41% 55% Q% 45% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 50% coverage: (5) 01 (5) 11 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) percent of site Minimum yard (22) requirements: feet Front yard 20 it 30 it 20 It 10ft loft loft loft 101t loft 10it loft loft 20 it loft loft 20 it loft loft 20ft loft 10it 20 it loft loft 20 it (6) (7) (6) (6) (6) (6) 16) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (5) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) 16) (8) (8) (a) (a) 18) (a) is) 18) (a) (a) is) (a) (a) (a) Is) (s) (0) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) 19) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Side yard 15ft po) 15 it 5ft 5k 5k 5k 5k 5k 5k 5k 5k (11) 5k 5ft (11) 5ft 5k (11) 5k 5ft (11) 5k 5ft (11) LB) 11 (3301 (30) (31 U Side yard on 20 it 20 it loft 10it loft loft loft loft loft loft 10it 15ft loft loft 15ft loft loft 15ft loft 10it 15ft loft loft 15 it flanking street (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Pi (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) of a comer lot Rear yard 20 It 15K 5k 5k 5111 5k 5ft 5ft 8k 5ft 8k 20 it 5k 8ft 20 it 5k aft 20 ft 5ft 8R 20 It 5ft 8k 20 it Additional 112) (13) (12) (141 (14) (14) (14) (14) setbacksldista (15) (151 (15) (15) (15) nces between buildings Height limitation: 2.5 2 stryl 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 stryl 2.5 2"1 3 stryl 2.5 2 stryl 3 stryl 2.5 2.5 stryl 3 stryl 2.5 stryl 2.5 stryl 3 slryl 2.5 2.5 stryl 4 stryl in storieslnot to a"/ 3511 stryl stryl stryl stryl stryl stryl stryl 35 ft stryl 30 ft 30 ft stryl 30 ft 30 ft stryl 35 ft 40 ft 30 it 35 ft 40 ft stryl 35 ft 5011 exceed in feet 35 ft (1T) 35 it 35 it 35 ft 35 ft 35 it 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 it 30 it 30 it (16) (1$) Maximum 40% 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 75% 75% 70% 75% 70% 70% 75% 70% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70% impervious (19) (19) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (191 (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) surface:percent of total parcel area Zero lot line and The provisions in Sections 15.08.300,310,320,and 330 shall apply. clustering (24) Signs The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 shall apply. Offstreet parking The off-street parking requirements of Chapter 15.05 shall apply. Landscaping The landscaping requiremerds of Chapter 15.07 shall apply. Multifamily (25) (25) (25) (25) (25) Transition Area Multi-family (26) (26) 128) (26) (26) design review Additional Additional standards for specific uses are contained In Chapter 15.08 and Chapter 15.09. standards (20) 120) (311 (28) (26) 121) (29) (29) 20 SECTION 13. Section 15.04.180 of the zoning code set forth in the Kent City Code, entitled "Agricultural and residential land use development standard conditions," is hereby amended by adding a new condition which shall read as follows: Sec. 15.04.180. Agricultural and residential land use development standard conditions. 1. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred(8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 2. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred(8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 3. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred(8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 4. To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots, a circle of applicable diameter(the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot; provided, that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle. 5. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage. 6. Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line. 7. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 8. Proposed front yards less than twenty (20) feet in depth are subject to approval by the planning director, based on review and recommendation from the public works department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-of-way requirements as specified in the city comprehensive transportation plan and city construction standards. 21 Urban Separators 9. At least twenty(20) linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any ., garage,carport or other primary parking area and the street property line with the exception of an alley property line. 10. An aggregate side yard of thirty(30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of ten(10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty(20) feet from the property line. 11. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty(30) feet. 12. Structures for feeding,housing and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty(50) feet from any property line. 13. Additional setbacks for the agriculture general (AG) zoning district. a. Structures for feeding,housing and care of animals shall be set back fifty(50) feet from any property line. b. Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist, as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty(50) feet shall be provided. C. Setbacks, Green River. Industrial development in the AG district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred(200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and in accordance with the high quality of site development typically required for the industrial park areas of the city and in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 22 Urban Separators 14. An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a r'^ minimum of twenty(20) feet. 15. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half(1/2) the sum of the height of both buildings; provided,however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same building separated from each other by a court or other open space. 16. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos; provided,that they are not located within fifty(50) feet of any lot line. 17. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty(60) feet,there shall be added one(1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height. 18. The planning director shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four(4) stories or sixty(60) feet; provided, such height does not detract from the continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the planning director may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses. 19. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand(10,000) square feet when the lot is greater than one (1) acre. 20. The following uses are prohibited: a. The removal of topsoil for any purpose. b. Grade and fill operations; provided, that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct permitted buildings or structures. C. All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses. d. Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials. 23 Urban Separators e. Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices. 21. Outdoor storage for industrial uses shall be located at the rear of a principally permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. 22. Mobile home park combining district, MHP.The standards and procedures of the city mobile home park code shall apply. General requirements and standards for mobile home park design, KCC 12.04.520; mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC. 23. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand(10,000) square feet. 24. , Minimum lot width, building setbacks, and minimum lot size regulations may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development. 25. The requirements of KCC 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100) feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way. 26. The requirements of KCC 15.09.045 for multifamily design review shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units. 27. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred(8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 28. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application of a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, 0, 0-MU, NCC, CC, GC, DC or DCE. 29. All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominiums only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 RCW prior to approval of a development permit by the city. 24 Urban Separators 30. As an option to the five (5) foot side yard requirement for single-family development in all multi-family zoning districts as set forth in 15.04.170, a side yard width of no less than three (3) feet may be utilized under the following conditions: 1. Fire hydrants for the development, as required by the fire code set forth in Title 13 of the Kent City Code, will be placed a maximum of 300 feet in separation; 2. The required fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute; and 3. Emergency vehicle access roads shall be provided to the development, which includes an improved road accessible within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior first floor of the structure. This option is subject to the approval of the Washington State Building Council. Application of this option shall be effective upon receipt by the City of Kent of such approval. 31. Where lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator, as r designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units shall be required to be clustered, subject to the provisions of Kent City Code Chapter 12.04 entitled "Subdivisions". The density in a cluster subdivision shall be no greater than the density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole, including all critical areas (creeks, wetlands, geoloizical hazard areas) and buffers, using the maximum density provisions of the zoning district in which it is located. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of 50%of the non-constrained area of the parcel. The non-constrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the non-constrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other 25 Urban Separators adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails and maintains , scenic vistas. Critical 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 strands 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 common open space shall be prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adiacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands: impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. Such common open Wages may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the City with the City s consent and approval or to another �1 party upon approval of the City of Kent. The minimum lot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision is 2,500 square feet, and the minimum lot width is 30 feet. In the event that common open space prohibits development of one single family residence on the.parcel, the common open space will be reduced by the amount necessary to meet the minimum 2500 square foot lot size. New lots created by subdivision action shall be clustered in rg_ouDs not exceeding eight (8) units. There maybe more than one (1) cluster perproject. Separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of 120 feet. Sight obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area. SECTION 14. — Moratorium Termination. The moratorium on the acceptance of applications for any land use permit or approval for subdivisions, short plats, or any other similar application that increases the number of lots and/or density on property located within the currently established urban separators, as identified in the Soos Creek 26 Urban Separators Community Plan and in areas proposed for inclusion as an urban separator in the City of Kent, as set forth in Resolution No. 1576, shall terminate on the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 15. —Severability. If any one or more section, 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 16. —Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 27 Urban Separators PASSED: day of , 2001. APPROVED: day of , 2001. PUBLISHED: day of , 2001. I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:\CiviPOrdinance\UrbanSep r ors-CodeRevision.doc 28 Urban Separators Exhibit "A" NARRATIVE ADDITION TO NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES OF LAND USE ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (to be added at the end of the existing narrative of this section) 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 Covington and between Urban Growth Areas and Rural Areas of unincorporated King County. Big Soos 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 208`h and 137t'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. Exhibit"A" Exhibit`B" NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES ADDITION TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (to be added at the end of the existing goals and policies of this section) Goal LU-28 — 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. ,Policy LU-28.1 — Establish urban separators as low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. Policy LU-28.2 — Only allow amendments to the urban separator policy at the time coinciding with King County's 20-year review of its 1994 Policy Update of the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety. Policy LU-28.3 — Require subdivisions within or adjacent to urban separators to provide open space linkages within or to the urban separator. Policy LU-28.4—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. Policy LU-28.5—Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies, adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach to Urban Separators. Policy LU-28.6—Link urban separators within the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Policy LU-28.7—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-28.8—Consider funding options, land trusts,purchase of development rights, and other methods for public acquisition of urban.separators. Exhibit"B" Exhibit"B" NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS AND POLICIES ADDITION TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (to be added at the end of the existing goals and policies of this section) Goal LU-28 — 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. Policy LU-28.1 — Establish urban separators as low-density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre. Policy LU-28.2 — Only allow amendments to the urban separator policy at the time coinciding with King County's 20-year review, __ofits 1994 Policy Update of the Comprehensive Plan or by Kent City Councii i9vitation because of pending danger or public safety. �__ _ ...•' Policy LU-28.3 — Require subdivisions within or adjacent to urban separators to provide open space linkages within or to the urban separator. Policy LU-28.4—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. Policy LU-28.5—Coordinate with appropriate South King County agencies, adjacent cities, and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach to Urban Separators. Policy LU-28.6—Link urban separators within the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Policy LU-28.7—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-28.8 Consider funding options, land trusts,purchase of development rights,and other methods for public acquisition of urban separators. Exhibit"B" i ■el• , r nl I �•�����j �ilu 1'r ,I:IIIil1i1 �J II � � V ,► ,, .1 INS I!�1 mil .I�� � �11. �� I L 1.-.IR ■■ •�j#„ ��.I.. ■� it r ugri nll ' r. .:�y r._.r r r 1i11! ` 7r ,MO �. . ' �II- 1llil'■�:'i11 I ��n i r•• .I•;311•■�r err I 71`!4•�i 17f'_� .AI�,,..I,. I1. y : .! 1 �11111 �—. �■11 �.■111 1 y'T •1 ■ 1 11 I . I �■ ■�1 � III ' �� f, �.f � , ' its MEN Mo RV Is �Cu��-:_ J. :.Illy RIII��'.• .— fff _ r�.. =I •�/ill. to la I�( "� 1 "■ j, I•�i r7 �'`;��• III:' ' ; •. DMMIT IIII3� ��4On Mo III I.�� � ����',l-l■l ■�L ��� ii 11 'Ifa1 , � '` 1l lirri■�'��� 11ltla''•..111 � I■I �''r � �Il III , � @: Il111 w �u �.-off- arm1. 1 I. ■1 u I�u,llllr�,l •2 � � !.��� ' � ill(�11�1�■1� :I.�►� --� � ��,�� �� I No FIN ,I .■ 111�IIL� i��{��i�l■ oa �LL II:�I■I a 1`'tC `1.,1�r " 11%�*I h= ' t + ri ■' '~ 1� I„ I,>���■iii i ��I,�]-In�J■��I�h• I ' �I � it ��� II II III � ui� ,L'���.li `,'�I��� , �10%n�.■.I ,I. �` L� 1r oil Rjl 1 ii� ■ 13 .IIII .■I;IIiII, I ..� �i •31�•. ► II I��I I� � 1161r lu I� ■� i��• �h�� 1J ��1 ' �J�"• �i. ll • �� ��� ��� L�•.l��lJ :�I�s y 71 �� 112. •1 .•� S■p_..�11■ • :_ 9111 ■eueu.�� C '. �� i:,1r• ■ Sy. i■�11111111 L���r� l rlai'� ■m�J Inn. nnalr -1�■� I III Am L X-1/1 �— Kent City Council Meeting Date March 20 , 2001 Category Other Business 1 . SUBJECT: CAIRNES (#CPA-99-3 (1) /#CPZ-99-1) AND PACIFIC INDUSTRIES (#CPA-99-3 (D) /#CPZ-99-4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their February 27th meeting, the Planning Committee recommended approval of the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation of DENIAL of the Cairnes and Pacific Industries Amendments . These amendments had been tabled by the City Council on February 15, 2000 and referred to the Planning Committee for further consideration, pending a policy on urban separators. The Cairnes property is located at 14845 SE 264th Street; the Pacific Industries property is located at 24039 146th Place SE; and both properties lie within the proposed Urban Separator area. 3 . EXHIBITS: Council minutes of 2/15/00; Land Use and Planning Board minutes of 11/29/99; and maps . Also refer to exhibits under Urban Separator agenda item 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planningr 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 to approve/deny/modify the Planning Committee ' s recommendation of DENIAL of Cairnes and Pacific Industries Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments . DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 7B t Kent City Council Minutes February 15 , 2000 PLATS Chancellor Park Division I Final Plat and authori- zation for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. The Chancellor Park Division I Final Plat is 6 .26 acres in size and is located on the southern margin of SE 240th Street between 128th Avenue SE and 132nd Avenue SE. King County approved the preliminary subdivision under Ordinance No. 12371 on April 22, 1996 . This subdivision was trans- ferred to Kent by King County upon the annexation of the Meridian Valley area. City staff has reviewed the proposed final plat and finds that it complies with the conditions imposed by King County Ordinance No. 12371 and File No. L94P0014 . (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K) Rhododendron Estates Final Plat FSU-97-2 (KIVA #9903179) . APPROVAL of staff ' s recommendation of approval with conditions of the Rhododendron Estates Final Plat and authorization for the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. This final plat application was submitted by Bob Newman for the Rhododendron Estates Final Plat . The Hearing Examiner issued the Findings with conditions on the preliminary plat on April 15 , 1998 and an Order of Clarification was issued May 7, 1998 . The City Council approved the preliminary plat on June 2, 1998 . C COMPREHENSIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A) PLAN 1999 Comprehensive Plan and Zoninc Maip Amendments AMENDMENTS CPA-99-3 A-J and CPZ-99-1. 2 . 3 .4. 6, 8, 9 . By ordinance, amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan are processed collectively once each year. Applications for ten plan amendments were received by September 1, 1999 . Nine of the applications involved proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Land Use and Planning Board held public hearings on November 22 and November 29, 1999, and on January 24 , 2000 . Brotherton noted that Proposals A and D have to do with an urban separator policy, and that the City does not have such a policy. He requested that Kent City Council Minutes February 15, 2000 COMPREHENSI these proposals be tabled and sent to the Planning PLAN Committee for discussion, and that the City' s AMENDMENTS policy be determined before considering these amendments . There were no objections . Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the recommendations for each proposal , as delineated in the Mayor' s memo of this date. He provided letters from the owners of the Tolles/Fox/Braun, Proposal F, withdrawing their application, from Ardis Johnson regarding Proposal D, from Dennis Holt addressing Proposal D, from Kim Adams Pratt dealing with Proposal C, and from King County Executive Ron Sims regarding the urban separator issue. ORR MOVED to make the letters a part of the public record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. Upon Orr' s question, Satterstrom said it is his belief that no one testified on the Capital Facilities Element at the public hearing. Amodt questioned why the Fortunato proposal is recommended for denial, and Satterstrom explained that there were issues regarding the surrounding zoning, drainage, and impacts to wildlife and wetlands, and that it was a split vote. He noted that the staff recommended approval in light of what is happening in the general vicinity regard- ing plats . Amodt said she does not see any issues with this land. BROTHERTON MOVED that the TNS Condo amendment (Proposal B) be approved. Yingling seconded and the motion carried. BROTHERTON MOVED that the Clasen amendment (Proposal C) be approved. Woods seconded and the motion carried. BROTHERTON MOVED that the Fortunato amendment (Proposal G) be denied. Orr seconded. Ph' Fortunato, 10223 SE 200th Street, explained that the zoning change was not submitted because of time and money. He stated that the reason for th higher density is to address the environmental 6 `CITY Of '��J ! . � Jim White, Mayor rNV ICrA.8 using Department (253)856-5454/FAX(253)856-6454 tes P. Harris, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing November 29 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:20 p.m. on Monday, November 29, 1999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Brad Bell Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Steve Dowell Diana Nelson, Planner Jon Johnson Justin Osemene, Asst. City Attorney David Malik Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary Sharon Woodford LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT/EXCUSED Terry Zimmerman, Vice Chair APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of November 22nd has been moved to the January 24 public hearing for approval. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director. James Harris announced that a tentative continuance hearing is set for v onciay, December 13 concerning #CPA-99-3 (J) The City of Kent Finance Department's capital improvement program amendment. 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVERVIEW Planner, Matthews Jackson explained the procedural process for reviewing and hearing comprehensive plan applications. He stated that the applications are reviewed citywide and staff bases their recommendations on the following three standards of review criteria: ♦ that the amendments do not result in development that would adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare, and ♦ that the amendments are based on new information at the time of adoption or on circumstances that may have changed since the adoption of the comprehensive plan that warrant amendment, and 210 ich AVE.SO . , KENT. %V.%SH1`GT0N 9x03'-5.49; 'TFLEPHONF !253,Si6-5100 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 2 r— ♦ that the amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. Mr. Jackson stated that staff anticipates sending the amendments to City Council in January, 2000 with the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendations for final review and decision. #CPA-99-3 (A)/CPZ-99-1 CAIRNES AMENDMENT Planner Diana Nelson spoke in the absence of Kevin O'Neill. She stated that the subject property consists of one tax lot approximately 1.18 acres in size located at 14845 SE 264th at the intersection of 264th and the Soos Creek trail, approximately 300 feet west of 148th Avenue Southeast. Ms. Nelson stated that the existing comp plan designation for the parcel is SF-I, Single Family, one unit per acre with a proposed comp plan designation of SF-3, Single Family, three units per acre. Ms. Nelson stated that the existing zoning is SR-I, Single Family, one unit per acre with a proposed zoning change to either SR-2 or SR-3; both of which are consistent with the comp plan designation of SF-3. Ms. Nelson stated that the site currently contains one single-family residential dwelling unit and is generally flat with no wetlands. She stated that the property is surrounded to the north and west by low-density single family residential uses and that King County owns parcels to the south and southeast of the site as part of Soos Creek Park. Ms. Nelson stated that the surrounding parcels are designated SF-1 and zoned SR-1 with parcels to the west of 148th Avenue Southeast designated as SF-6 and zoned SR-4.5. Ms. Nelson stated that the Soos Creek ril is located immediately east of the site with a parking lot for the park located south of the site. Ms. c,alson said that there are three single family residences located west of the site which abut 148th Avenue Southeast. Ms. Nelson stated that access to the subject property is from Southeast 264th Street, which is not currently built to residential standards. She stated that if this application is approved and the property divided into an additional lot, the applicant would be required to participate in the cost of improving 264th Street. Ms. Nelson stated that an urban separator designated this property in King County's Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 1994), prior to annexation by the City of Kent. Ms. Nelson stated that the zoning for the parcel was R-1, one unit per acre. She stated that King County's Comprehensive Plan contains several policies defining urban separators as "low-density areas within the urban growth area that create open space corridors and provide visual contrast or bz ffer to continuous development between cities. " Ms. Nelson stated that urban separator designations were generally applied to undeveloped land or underdeveloped parcels located near existing open space corridors or environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Nelson stated that at the time of adoption of Kent's Comprehensive Plan in 1995, there were no designated urban separator areas within Kent's city limits; therefore, the City's comprehensive plan does not include goals or policies specifically addressing urban separators. Ms. Nelson stated that properties with urban separator designations were annexed into the City at the time of the Meridian Annexation in 1996. She stated that when zoning for that area was improved some of the urban separator areas were given higher single family zoning designations while others remained at low- ?"osity. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Nelson stated that the proposed site is appropriate for low-density residential and that a zoning designation of SR-2 would allow for one additional lot to be created resulting in two lots approximately one half acre in size per lot. Ms. Nelson stated that the creek as well as the open space along the creek function as an affective buffer and urban separator. She stated that SR-3 zoning would allow three additional lots to be created resulting in lots smaller than the existing adjoining lots. Ms. Nelson stated that the lot sizes of the proposed parcels are approximately 29,000 square feet in size and there are other single family lots in the adjoining area that vary in size from 32,000 square feet to over one acre. Ms. Nelson stated that since the property is 51,778 square feet in size, two lots would average approximately 26,000 square feet each equivalent to existing surrounding lots to the west ranging from 28,000 to 29,500 square feet. She stated that these lot sizes do not conform to the current SR-1 zone with a minimum lot size of 34,500 square feet. Ms. Nelson stated that changing zoning to SR-2 would result in development compatible with the surrounding area which would not unduly burden the transportation network and would continue to preserve the low density nature of the area. Ms. Nelson stated that staff recommends a SF-3 designation and a rezone to SR-2, not SR-3 as requested by the applicant. Ms. Nelson stated that the application only considers the applicant's property. However, there are three parcels to the west of the subject property that are also designated SF-1 and SR-1 which do not currently meet the minimum lot size requirements for that zone and offered the option to the Board to consider changing the comp plan designation on those three parcels as well to SF-3. ^ Ms. Nelson stated that if the Board chose to pursue the aforementioned option, staff recommends that an additional hearing be held with a public notice sent to the effected property owners, allowing them the opportunity to be involved in the process. Ms. Nelson said that since the property owners have not requested a zone change at this time, staff does not propose a zone change at this time. She stated that by changing only the comp plan designation the entire area's designation would remain similar, giving a more consistent look to the comp plan map. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. MOTION carried. Carol Cairnes, 14845 SE.264th St., Kent, WA stated that as the applicant she is requesting dividing her property into two parcels to remain consistent with the half acre parcels abutting her property. Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue, Kent, WA stated that he is the President of Friends of Soos Creek Park, a nonprofit corporation committed to the enhancement of Soos Creek Park. He submitted a report for the record as Exhibit #1. Mr. Miles stated that the corporation's primary objection to both the Caimes and Pacific Industries amendment relate to increasing density in the urban separator that serves as an open space buffer to Soos Creek and the Soos Creek trail. Mr. Miles stated that in 1990 the State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA) and subsequently amended the GMA in 1991 requiring adoption of County wide planning policies. Mr. Miles stated that the King County Council adopted the County wide planning policies in 1992, which were subsequently ratified by the City of Kent. Mr. Miles read, for the record, from a significant countywide land use policy LU-27 relating to urban separators. Mr. Miles emphasized critical portions of the policy relating to urban separators as "permanent low density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas and environmentally sensitive Land Use and Planning Board Lnutes { November 29, 1999 Page 4 leas... "Mr. Miles stated that in 1994 the King County Comprehensive Plan designated this area as urban parators and in 1995 the zoning within that urban separator was designated as one unit per acre. Mr. Miles stated that the intent of the urban separator is to buffer Soos Creek and the Soos Creek Trail from higher density. Mr. Miles said that he refutes the section of the staff report stating that "nothing in the City's comprehensive plan relates to urban separators. Mr. Miles said that Soos Creek is a valuable fisheries resource, utilized by several salmon species including Chinook and that Soos Creek Trail is designated as a regional trail serving a large community and several jurisdictions. Mr. Miles stated that subsequent to this proposed amendment both the Meridian and Meridian Valley Annexations annexed parts of this urban separator. He stated that the City of Kent should strictly adhere to the County wide planning policy LU-27 to not redesignate the property to a higher density for the twenty year planning cycle. Mr. Miles said that the City of Kent should receive approval and concurrence from King County prior to modification of the development regulations. Mr. Miles voiced concern over road standard impacts that could result from rezoning the Caimes property. He stated that 264th Street is a dead end street serving over four homes with no emergency turn around and consists of gravel with no drainage controls, no detention, no water quality treatment nor a conveyance system. Mr. Miles stated that the intersection of 148th and 264th has limited site distance to the north for southbound traffic movement and that actual site distance standards should be 490 feet. Mr. Miles stated that it appears that only 300 feet is available at this intersection. Mr. Miles stated that the Caimes two-lot short plat would probably not be subject to drainage review or to / ''l improvements of this roadway as the property consists of less than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. Mr. Miles stated that there is a sentence in the City of Kent's comprehensive plan that states "the City is incorporating the Soos Creek Land Use Map which is one unit per acre on an interim basis until an interlocal agreement is reached between the City and King County regarding growth targets for the area." He questioned if the interlocal agreement was ever established. Mr. Miles said that the Kent City Code Section 12.02050 states that there are three standards by which amendments are reviewed. Mr. Miles said that the second standard is based upon new information not available at the time of the comprehensive plan's adoption or where circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan. Mr. Miles questioned what new information and change in circumstances since 1995 would warrant an increase in density. Mr. Miles stated that he recommends denial of the Caimes amendment as the proposed rezone is not compatible and suggested retaining the current zoning of one dwelling unit per acre. Marc Imlay, 24625 148th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he is treasurer of the Friends of Soos Creek Park and said that his main concern is that the park and trail be protected. He voiced concern that approval of this amendment could function as a precedent for increasing zoning density in this sensitive area. Faith Wilson, 15011 SE 264th St., Kent, WA said that she has resided in the area 27 years. Ms. Wilson questioned how the City of Kent would address needed road improvements as the roadway in the area of ,O-R Caimes driveway tends to settle and sink. Ms. Wilson questioned if the Caimes would continue to use -ir well or hook into city water and voiced concern over the aquifer's capability to handle additional houses. Ms. Wilson stated that she opposes a rezone. r � Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 5 Bob Nelson, 24048 156th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he is a member of the Covington Planning Commission. He said that his testimony expresses his personal feelings and was not representative of the City of Covington, the Planning Commission or any staff member of the City or elected official. Mr. Nelson stated that the county wide planning policies include a consistency requirement and these comprehensive plan amendments would intrude into that urban separator which was set up to specifically discourage the encroachment of housing directly up to the edge of the trail or stream. Mr. Nelson stated that King County's zoning of one unit per acre should be retained and voiced opposition to this property being rezoned to two or three units per acre. Mr. Nelson encouraged the Board to consider that if this rezone is approved, this could set precedence for future infringement into sensitive areas. Mr. Nelson stated that he believes this amendment is inconsistent with the County wide planning policies and with the Growth Management Act and urged the Board to reject this amendment. Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. City Engineer Mr. Gill stated that although SE 264th is a public right-of-way, it is a gravel roadway and therefore not maintained. He stated that the road currently serves four residences as a private access driveway for their homes. Mr. Gill stated that in conjunction with any future development the roadway would have to be improved with asphalt to a specific width per City standards. Mr. Gill stated that the road improvements would likely trigger requirements for storm water detention and treatment. He stated that as this site is located in a sensitive area and in close proximity to Soos Creek, City staff would analysis the site from an environmental perspective. Mr. Gill stated that the City could require treatment and detention even ..� if the property does not exceeds the five thousand square foot size requirement as set by Cities standards. Mr. Gill stated that this property is serviced by King County Water District #111 jurisdiction. Mr. Gill stated that he believed the property owner would be able to use their private well system as long as the well met current standards. Mr. Gill stated, however, that the property owner would need to work in conjunction with King County Health Department, State Department of Ecology and the local water purveyor to determine the viability of the well. Planner Diana Nelson quoted extensively from King County's Land Use Policy 27 on urban separators. She stated that the urban separators seem to be at the center of the controversy regarding this amendment. She said that a portion of the policy states that "maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a local concern. Therefore, no modification shalt be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence. " Ms. Nelson spoke at length on the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan's definition of higher and urban densities. She stated that a considerable amount of development has taken place in this general area since 1995 and when an applicant requests additional density, staff looks at what would be considered appropriate for the area based on the nature of the land and what has occurred in the surrounding areas. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom said that an interlocal agreement concerning growth targets did not exist between King County and the City of Kent and stated that an agreement existed for the processing and disposition of building permits. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City of Kent completed a capacity analysis and looked at existing zoning as an attempt to ascertain a growth target at the time the Meridian Annexation took place. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes t November 29, 1999 Page 6 P-k. Satterstrom stated that the Urban Separator policies were not a concern to City of Kent at the time Kent __opted their own comprehensive plan as the Meridian area was not annexed at that time. He stated that urban separators become an issue as the City begins to annex territory east of the City of Kent. Mr. Satterstrom urged the Board to move staff s recommendation on to the City Council, as the City's legal department is currently analyzing what would occur if Planning staff decided to move ahead with an action that would oppose the County wide planning policy. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the City does not have an established urban separator definition established. Mr. Satterstrom stated that from the City of Kent's perspective, low density is defined as three units or less and the Growth Hearings Board would stipulate that a.density of four units or less per acre is not considered dense enough for urban development. Mr. Satterstrom stated that although staffs recommendation of two units per acre is an increase in the existing density, it is not out of character with the development adjacent to the west of the site. Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Steve Dowell stated that he recognizes the sensitive nature of this property and voiced concern that the density of development would be greater than this parcel of land could accommodate. He voiced opposition to this amendment as it could adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare. Brad Bell concurred with Mr. Dowell in opposing this amendment. Jon Johnson stated that approval of this amendment infringes upon the urban separators and voiced his paposition. Sharon Woodford concurred with the other Board members in voicing her opposition. Chair Ron Harmon concurred with the Board members to deny this amendment. Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to deny Staff s recommendation to approve CPA-99-3 (A)/CPZ-99-1 Caimes Amendment on the basis that it would adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare. Motion carried unanimously. #CPA-99-3 (D)/CPZ-99-4 PACIFIC INDUSTRIES. INC. AMENDMENT Diana Nelson said that the proposed site is located at 24039 146th Place Southeast on the eastern edge of the City abutting Southeast 240th Street. She stated that the site consists of one-parcel 8.6 acres in size. Ms. Nelson stated that the existing plan designation is SF-I, single family, one unit acre and the proposed plan designation is SF-6, single family, six units per acre. Ms. Nelson stated that existing zoning is SR-1, single family, on nit per acre and the proposed zoning is SR-6, single family, 6.05 units per acre. She said that the-parcel currently contains one single-family residential unit and has steep slopes on the north and e ern portions of the parcel. Ms. Nelson stated that single family resident[ development exists in varying densities surrounding the property. She stated that the Loe Estates S ivision, home to the Ridgefield and Ridgecrest development is located to the west and south of th ubject property and is zoned SR-4.5. Ms. Nelson stated that the subdivision was platted in 199922 undo King County with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet. Ms. Nelson stated that at,tKe time of platting, King County zoning was SR-9600, which equates to the aunty's current R-4 zonng. She stated that at the time the plat was approved 146th Avenue Southeast was �._V,eloped leading to the southern portion of the site. Ms. Nelson stated that access to the subject property is available from the road to the south and from an easement extending south from Southeast 240th. Land Use and Planning Board minutes November 29, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Urban Separator policies were not a concern to City of Kent at the time Kent adopted their own comprehensive plan as the Meridian area was not annexed at that time. He stated that urban separators become an issue as the City begins to annex territory east of the City of Ke . Mr. Satterstrom urged the Board to move staffs recommendation on to the City Counci the City's legal department is currently analyzing what would occur if Planning staff decided to mo ahead with an action that would oppose the County wide planning policy. Mr. Satterstrom stated tha e City does not have an established urban separator definition established. Mr. Satterstrom stated that from the City of Kent's perspective, low d ity is defined as three units or less and the Growth Hearings Board would stipulate that a.density of fo units or less per acre is not considered dense enough for urban development. Mr. Satterstrom stated that although staff s recommenda 'on of two units per acre is an increase in the existing density, it is not out of character with the dev pment adjacent to the west of the site. Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECOND to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Steve Dowell stated that he recognizes the s sitive nature of this property and voiced concern that the density of development would be greater this parcel of land could accommodate. He voiced opposition to this amendment as it could adversely ect public health, safety and general welfare. Brad Bell concurred with Mr. Dowell in opposing this ndment. Jon Johnson st/.,=endment of this amendment infringes upon the urban separators and voiced his n opposition. Shconcurred with the other Board members in voicing her opposition. Chair Ron Harwith the Board members to deny this amendment. Steve Dowell d Bell SECONDED to deny Staff s recommendation to approve CPA-99-3 (A)/CPZ-99-1ment on the basis that it would adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare. Motion carried unanimously. #CPA-99-3 (DIICPZ-99-4 PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC. AMENDMENT Diana Nelson said that the proposed site is located at 24039 146th Place Southeast on the eastern edge of the City abutting Southeast 240th Street. She stated that the site consists of one-parcel 8.6 acres in size. Ms. Nelson stated that the existing plan designation is SF-I, single family, one unit per acre and the proposed plan designation is SF-6, single family, six units per acre. Ms. Nelson stated that existing zoning is SR-1, single family, one unit per acre and the proposed zoning is SR-6, single family, 6.05 units per acre. She said that the parcel currently contains one single-family residential unit and has steep slopes on the north and eastern portions of the parcel. Ms. Nelson stated that single family residential development exists in varying densities surrounding the property. She stated that the Loe Estates Subdivision, home to the Ridgefield and Ridgecrest development is located to the west and south of the subject property and is zoned SR-4.5. Ms. Nelson stated that the subdivision was platted in 1992 under King County with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet. Ms. Nelson stated that at the time of platting, King County zoning was SR-9600, which equates to the County's current R-4 zoning. She stated that at the time the plat was approved 146th Avenue Southeast was developed leading to the southern portion of the site. Ms. Nelson stated that access to the subject property is available from the road to the south and from an easement extending south froin Southeast 240th. ( f _ Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 7 (111�. Nelson stated that parcels to the northwest and east of the property are over an acre in size and zoned She stated that King County owns the parcels to the north across Southeast 240th as part of Soos Creek Park and that the park is located approximately 500 feet to the east of the property and the trail system is north and east of the site. Ms. Nelson said that prior to annexation, the property was designated as an urban separator in the King County Comp Plan and zoned R-1. She stated that King County defines urban separators as "low-density areas within urban growth areas that create open space corridors and provide visual contrasts or buffers to continuos development between cities". Ms. Nelson stated that one on the County's comp plan policies defines urban separators as permanent low- density lands, which protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas and environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Nelson stated that the steep slopes on the land are not suitable for development and are part of the reason why this has been designated as an urban separator. She stated that at the time the Kent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995, there were no urban separator lands within city limits and this area only came into the City in 1997 with the Meridian Valley Annexation, at which time, those urban separator lands were annexed to the City. Ms. Nelson spoke at length on Kent's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 8.1, referring to densities within the potential annexation areas as well as Goal LU-20 that referred to the protection and enhancement of environmentally sensitive areas. Ms.Nelson stated that this parcel is located at the edge of urban development to the west and south and open space corridors along the creek. She stated that there is a natural urban separator of steep slopes located /'�'•ig the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. Ms. Nelson stated that both the south and western portions of the property are not environmentally constrained and would appear to support higher density development. While the applicants have requested SR-6 zoning, staff does not feel that this is compliant with the surrounding property densities and that four units per acre or SR-4.5 is a more appropriate density. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed plan designation be changed from SF-1 to SF-6 and that the zoning on the property be changed from SR-1 to SR-4.5 in lieu of the SR-6 zoning as requested by the applicant. Ms. Nelson stated that a survey has not been completed to determine how much of the acreage consists of steep slopes and it appears that two-thirds of the property is level enough for residential development. Ms. Nelson stated that there is not an abutting road connection to the west and the easement to the north is too dangerous to be considered as a viable access point for the property. She concurred with Ron Harmon that the only viable access to the site would be directly through the neighborhood to the south. Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Denny Holt, 1215 S Central,#211,Kent,WA submitted a map for the record as Exhibit 92. He stated that he represents Pacific Industries. Mr. Holt stated that the geography and topography of the property does not lend itself to a development of 6 units per acre. ?I Holt stated that Mr. Miles points are well taken relative to urban separators, the history of the GMA and the goals and objectives of preserving the park and open space along the creek. Mr. Holt stated that the urban separator issue should be discussed further between the City Council and the County. Mr. Holt continued to speak at length on what defines urban separators. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Holt stated that the proponents for this amendment concur with staff that urban densities should be considered as four units per acre to adequately support urban services. He stated that although the proposed site consists of 8.6 acres, potential development consists of 25 lots, which equates to 3 units per acre. Mr. Holt stated that he is aware that adequate access would need to be determined for the site. John Carlson, 24322 147th Ave SE, Kent, WA said he is the President of the Loe Estates Homeowners Organization representing the Ridgefield and Ridgecrest development located south of the proposed site. Mr. Carlson stated that the homeowners felt that they had not been given a long enough notification time prior to the public hearing. He stated that there are 123 residences in their development of which 54 received notification who reside within the 300-foot radios of the proposed zone change. Mr. Carlson stated that the recipients had only three business days to put together their presentation due to the holidays. Mr. Carlson spoke at length on safety issues connected with increased vehicular traffic as well as ingress and egress through his community. He stated that if the proposed site were to be developed with 25 homes, this could equate to between 250 and 300 more vehicular trips in and out of their existing neighborhood per day. Mr. Carlson voiced concerns over environmental hazards including drainage issues and the loss of natural vegetation and animal habitat. Mr. Carlson stated that the homeowners association desire more time to work on their opposition of this proposal and further said that the association collected 90%of residential signatures in the form of a petition requesting continuation of the hearing at a later date. Charles Olson, 14533 SE 243rd Place, Kent, WA stated that he resides in the community next to the proposed site. He stated that 146th Place was developed in anticipation of the possible extension of the Ridgefield neighborhood into that proposed area. Mr. Olson voiced his concern over potential safety hazards with increased traffic in the area. Mr. Olson stated that the proposed property functions as a catch basin during the spring and fall and said that if development occurs, this would necessitate containing and rerouting the water. Joe Miles, 24639 156th Ave SE, Kent, WA reiterated that his prior testimony regarding urban separators applies to this issue as well. Mr. Miles submitted a letter for the record as Exhibit #3. He stated that as President of Soos Creek Park, he is committed to its enhancement and protection. Mr. Miles stated that he opposes the Pacific Properties Amendment primarily due to the urban separator issue and the specific impacts associated with development of those properties. Mr. Miles felt that staff was reinterpreting the County wide planning policy LU-27 in order to accommodate higher density development whereas the policy clearly says "...shall not be redesignated for higher density. " Mr. Miles stated that this policy is a regional issue that should be considered at the county level. Mr. Miles stated that the purpose of the urban separator is to protect the Soos Creek Trail (designated as a regional trail) and Soos Creek, which contains the salmonid species including the Chinook salmon. Mr. Miles stated that since an interlocal agreement was never established, this would indicate that existing zoning should remain the same. Mr. Miles said that there are"safety concerns connected with Southeast 240th providing access to both the existing neighborhood as well as generating additional traffic for a proposed new development site. He stated that Southeast 240th has limited sight distance and in event of an emergency, a single entrance could block accessibility to the community. Land Use and Planning Board Nlinutes November 29, 1999 Page 9 Miles spoke at length on impacts associated with drainage issues and zoning compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Miles reiterated that a condition for approving amendments must indicate that new information has been made available and that circumstances have changed. He stated that the listing of Chinook salmon as endangered and the addition of the urban separator might warrant lower densities. Mr. Miles recommended that this amendment be denied. Marc Imlay, 24625 148th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he concurs with Mr. Miles testimony and said that he is uncomfortable with what he perceives as Planning staff s inclination to redefine density as it suites their needs in order to allow for more development. He voiced his concern over development infringing into the urban separator area. Gregory Cox, 24308 147th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he concurs with the previous opponents' testimonies. He stated that his property backs up directly to the drainage area of the applicant's site and he observes the field retaining water during spring and fall. Mr. Cox stated that the water slowly drains off, over the course of two or three days, by running through a drainage easement located on the back of his and his neighbor's property. Mr. Cox stated that a significant wildlife populace resides in the area including red-tailed hawks, tree frogs, blue herons, ducks, deer and coyotes. Mr. Cox stressed his recommendation for denial. Catherine Skinner, 24048146th Place, Kent, WA stated that their property is located at the bottom of the �Wl with water draining across their property into a drainage conduit in the Ridgefield Development. She ,:ed that water stands year round on her property and vegetative growth would support this. Ms. Skinner stated that King County designated the hillside as erosion sensitive and a land slide area which should not be developed and stated that development of one home per acre would be reasonable. She said that she concurred with Mr. Miles testimony. Ken Dickel, 14612 SE 243rd Place, Kent, WA stated that his biggest concern is with drainage issues. He stated that he has observed water pooling in three locations on the proposed site that cascades down into his property. He stated that water runs into the drainage system on his property all winter long Mr. Dickel stated that with an increase in density, the level of the land would have to be raised in order to develop this property, creating a land mass differential that would add additional drainage flow problems. Doug Spencer, 14515 SE 247th St., Kent, WA stated that he concurs with the previous speakers and opposes this amendment. He stated that as a resident of King County for 45 years, he has seen the implementation of the GMA as a tool to inhibit destructive developmental growth within the community. Cathy Tillotson, 24231 146th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that her property is located on 146th and believes that her property would be greatly impacted with the possible development of 25 homes. She stated that as traffic travels into the neighborhood on her street, the increased trips would create safety hazards. Ms. Tillotson stated that she would like to see this amendment denied. Bob Nelson, 24048 156th Ave SE, Kent, WA restated his position that he does not represent the City of P—vington, their staff, Planning Commission or elected officials. Mr. Nelson stated that his main objective L .,evelopment is infringement into the urban separator, therefore, he does not want an increase in zoning. C", f... Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Nelson spoke at length on urban separator issues and voiced his belief that the King County planning policies has specific requirements in place that would not allow for incremental deterioration of urban separator. John Sluys, 24122 145th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he lives in Ridgecrest, which borders the subject property to the west. Mr. Sluys submitted photos of the site along with petitions from the neighbors for the record as Exhibit#4. He stated that they refer to the subject property as the Lakes as it is usually flooded over during the year. Mr. Sluys referred to the GMA in speaking to steep slopes on the subject property. He said that Section 4.4 of the Comprehensive Growth Plan Inventory of Critical Areas specifically states that "the Growth Management Act requires cities to inventory, designate and protect through development regulations, all critical area and resource lands. " Mr. Sluys stated that these critical areas are further defined to "include geologically hazardous areas such as steep slopes. " Mr. Sluys stated that he found it interesting that a recommendation was made to increase the zoning. He stated that he received his public notice on the morning of December 20, a Saturday morning. He stated that only 50 homes received notification in a neighborhood where every home would be impacted by this request and felt that the notification time was inadequate, as there were only 9 days notice of which only 3 days were business days due to the holidays. Mr. Sluys stated that public notice boards should be positioned on sites where accessibility is readily available to the public. Bill and Mary Ann Solomon, 24606 145th Place SE, Kent,WA voiced opposition to increasing density. Mr. Solomon stated that he is director of his home owners association and voiced concern that as density increases on the subject property located in close proximity to his neighborhood, that the residents may wish to use their neighborhood's playground. Mr. Solomon stated that he would not be opposed to inviting others to use some of their facilities but felt that in fairness to his community, the new residential development should set up their own association as well as be required to establish their own playground area. He stated that the homeowner's in his community pay for the privilege of having this amenity. Vidya Shastri,24134 145th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he resides in Ridgecrest and concurs with the previous speakers' testimonies. He stated that he moved into this neighborhood as it exemplified a rural setting with its proximity to Soos Creek as well as being set back from the main road. Mr. Shastri stated that increasing density would intensify traffic hazards in the area of 240th and 144th. Debbie Elkan, 24533 148th Lane SE, Kent, WA stated that the road leading to her home has flooded from drainage flowing down hill from Ridgefield through a pipeline in the hillside. She stated that no drainage easement exists through her property and that her driveway washed out with a portion of her property flooding over and washing down into the neighbor's property. Ms. Elkan stated that developing additional 25 homes is going to negatively impact the existing drainage problem. She stated that she purchased her home with its 1.5-acre parcel for the rural beauty that exists within the current zoning. Lowell Hess, 14423 SE 240th, Kent, WA stated that he is net opposed to development of this property and questioned if any space was dedicated for play ground areas. Scott Herder, 24157 145th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he is a resident in the cul-de-sac near the site. He stated concern over safety and traffic issues at the school bus stops as well as near the playground Land Use and Planning Board Lnutes November 29, 1999 Page 11 (Igcated on 145"'. He stated that 18 youth under the age of 10 reside in his development and that vehicular iffic does not heed the posted 25-mile per hour speed limit. He concurs with the other speakers' testimonies and opposes this amendment. Walt Kuehlthau, 24116 145th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that he observes six bodies of water setting on the proposed site from early fall to late spring. He stated that he concurs with the prior speakers' testimonies and said that he felt betrayed by City staff. Mr. Kuehlthau said that he was pleased when his subdivision was annexed into the City of Kent two years ago. He said that he attended every.planning meeting and it was his understanding that the zoning would not change. Mr. Kuehlthau said that as he recalled at the time of annexation, in questioning Mr. O'Neill, he was informed that the adjoining property would remain zoned one house per acre due to the slope being undevelopable as well as the slope being designated as a buffer zone. Mr. Kuehlthau questioned what information has changed in two years for staff to consider higher density. He stated that he is not opposed to developing the area with one unit per acre but opposes clustered housing on small lots of 6,000 to 7,200 square feet. Joe Harmon, 24022 146th Place SE, Kent, WA stated that his property is located directly east of the proposed property and voiced his opposition to this application. He stated that he shares the use of a well with three other residents located on his property near the boundary with owners to the south. He voiced concern with water run off possibly contaminating the well. Mr. Harmon stated that he is concerned with the increase in traffic and the safety issues that would arise with wing only a single access point to the new development through their community. Mr. Harmon questioned :w wetland issues would be mitigated. He stated that two major lakes form on the proposed site, one through a dam created by an existing road with a small culvert. David Leipham, 24110 145th Ave SE, Kent, WA stated that it was his understanding during the annexation process two years ago, due to the steep slopes part of the proposed site is not buildable. He stated that he understood that a single parcel of land could not be zoned with two differing zones. Mr. Leipham stated that 156" Street fronts his home and questioned if the road was barricaded only until further development occurs. Mr. Leipham questioned how an easement access from the north would effect 240"'. Joe Singh, 18124 Riviera Place, Normandy Park, WA stated that he is the owner of Pacific Industries. He stated that Joe Miles is a Senior Engineer with King County DDS who has worked on numerous plats iricluding many of his own properties over the last ten years. iVfr. Singh questioned the urban separator definition and if urban separators were established by King County or the Legislative branch of Government. Mr. Singh spoke at length on his interpretation of the Growth Management Act to enable developers to build on property within an established boundary that provides the community with fire, police, roadway, schools and park services. Mr. Singh spoke at length on water retention system criteria and stated that he has complied with the (-�ndards set by both King County and other applicable government agencies to meet the rules and ,.,gulations of the Service Water Management Act with his developments. C Land Use and Planning Board iViinutes November 29, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Singh stated that he has been in the development business for forty years and believes that his developments improve the economic status of the community and provides employment for the construction industry. Mr. Singh stated that he is requesting a zoning of 3.5 units per acre and due to constraints on the property will not be able to develop the site at that level. Mr. Singh spoke at length on the neighboring communities concerns with traffic and health issues. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Planner Diana Nelson spoke at length on urban separator concerns. She addressed the conflict between the City of Kent Land Use Policy 8.1 regarding densities-and King County's policy on urban separators in connection with zoning. Ms. Nelson stated that the City of Kent has a "Sensitive Areas Ordinance" which does not prohibit development on the entire parcel, only on those portions of the slope that fall within sensitive area guidelines. She stated that staff believes that the upland portion of flat to rolling hills on the site is appropriate for development and considers the area along the creek and the roadway to provide adequate urban separators. Ms. Nelson stated that Staff prefers not to split zoning on property. She stated that the applicant is asking for rezoning on the entire parcel with the knowledge that at least a third of the property is not developable at the requested density and that the remaining property can not be developed at a density of 6.05 units per acre. -� Ms. Nelson stated that the applicant wishes to develop the property at 3.5 units per acre but is requesting a higher density of 6.05 units per acre to allow for an appropriate number of lots to meet the cost of improving the land. She stated that the City of Kent does not have a clustering ordinance. Ms. Nelson deferred to City Engineer Gary Gill to speak to the issue of water detention and retention requirements. Ms. Nelson stated that a requirement does not exist for the construction of a playground as part of a development. She stated that the City Parks Department can require that a subdivision pay fees for City parks development and maintenance, or if the Parks Department request development of a park, they can require a donation of a portion of land in lieu of fees for construction of a park. Ms. Nelson stated that the City is in compliance with State and local regulations in noticing property owners within the 300-foot radius within the proper time frame. She concurred with the property owners that perhaps the City should consider a longer notification period to allow for public preparedness. Ms. Nelson stated that the City Council or Planning Board would need to initiate this issue, as a number of sections within the City Code would have to be amended. Ms. Nelson stated that City regulations do not specify where a public notice board must be positioned on a proposed site but allows the City to require an applicant to post more than one board on a large site. City Engineer Gary Gill stated that Soos Creek Sewer and Water District and King County Water District 111 serve property in the area of the proposed site. He stated that adequate utilities exist for extension to the proposed site. Mr. Gill stated that the City of Kent would require a public street extension into the proposed site. Mr. Gill said that the City will look at access from the standpoint of what King County's intent was when they Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 13 y-;Q,vided stub streets in that area. Mr. Gill stated that no access would be allowed onto 240' as that area is ,ep and does not allow for adequate site distance. Mr.Gill stated that 146 h St. is a dead-end street with a type three barricade that would allow the County to continue development of the street for further development. He stated that this roadway would provide the most logical and safest grade for primary access to the site and that a secondary access would be to extend 145" Mr. Gill said that Kent's City Council has requested that the Public Works Department re-evaluate Kent's road standards, which includes connectivity within neighborhoods. Mr. Gill stated that the City of Kent would like to discourage construction of cul-de-sacs. He stated that by providing alternative routes through a site, a safer environment is provided for police and fire vehicles as well as give the residents alternate ways to access and exit their neighborhood. Mr. Gill stated that the City has established a Neighborhood Traffic Control Program, as they are sensitive to public safety issues. He stated that residents of the site's adjoining neighborhoods have worked with the Public Works Departments on speeding issues and heavy traffic volume within their residential areas and encouraged them to continue to work with Public Works to explore methods of reducing traffic on their residential streets. Mr. Gill stated that the City would participate with the neighbors by conducting speed studies and accident surveys. Mr. Gill stated that 144' is the main access road into the site and was constructed as part of Loe Estates Subdivision under King County's jurisdiction. He stated that the road was intended to extend through to the south and provide a connection to Southeast 256'Street. Mr. Gill stated that the required road extension �s appealed by the developer through the King County Hearing Examiner and Council. The County upheld the decision to require that the road be extended although the extension never occurred and the City of Kent favors extension of this road as a means to provide a safe alternative route that would move traffic away from highly congested intersections. Mr. Gill stated that in the interim time since the appeal occurred, the property was annexed to the City of Kent and the road continuation is a legal issue that is being analyzed by the City of Kent's Law Department. Mr. Gill stated that the Public Works will consider slope stability, erosion and require that the developer conduct a geotechnical investigation and report to identify soil types, slope stability issues and what methods should be implemented to manage development on that site. Mr. Gill stated that Public Works considers this property as a highly hazardous area in that they would apply their strictest standards for storm water trcaiuiCnt and detention. Mr. Gill stated that typically there would be a required setback distance of 75 feet from the top of the steep slope, which would be left in its native vegetation as an undisturbed slope. He stated that storm water would be collected and detained or retained and that each home would be required to install down spout infiltration systems so that a majority of the storm water will flow into the ground to help recharge the normal ground water in that area. Mr. Gill stated that residual water flow not percolating into the ground would be collected and conveyed through a detention system and then moved off site. Mr. Gill stated that the developer would be required to complete a downstream anaiysis to look at how stoma water flows currently drain off the property. Mr. rencouraged the neighbors to work with Public Works in identifying where drainage problems exist. (._ f Land Use and Planning Board Minutes November 29, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Gill stated that Public Works would typically require a developer to tight line storm water down to the point where it is not running off of the erosive hillside and then provide water treatment prior to discharge into Big Soos Creek. Mr. Gill spoke at length regarding the existing site distance problems associated with 144' and 240i'. He stated that the site distance standards were established utilizing the American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials Recommendations for Roadway and Geometric Design. Mr. Gill stated that as stated by the City Attorney's office, the road standards were predominately developed around roadways built in Arizona and southern California consisting of flatlands with infinite room for good visibility. Mr. Gill stated that as a condition of development, the developer and his engineer would be required to work with both the County Health Department and other regulatory agencies to assure that there would not be negative impacts on adjacent well sites. Mr. Dowell stated that the Planning Department must comply with the State's Growth Management Act that stipulates limiting growth to areas within Kent's city limits where public facilities exist and encourages increased density in these areas while allowing for green space. Mr. Dowell stated that it seems the urban boundary issues have not been satisfied and thus recommended denial of this amendment. Sharon Woodford stated that water run off and retention from the steep slope on the subject property is of concern to her. She stated that only one access point into this proposed site would increase traffic safety concerns. Ms. Woodford stated that this property should be developed one unit per acre and voiced her opposition to this amendment. Mr. Bell noted that one speaker had implied that Planner, Kevin O'Neill had changed his land use position of two years ago at the time this property was annexed into the City of Kent. Mr. Bell said that he has worked with the Planning Department staff over several years and has never dealt with a more intelligent, credible, open, honest and helpful group of people, which have the difficult task of determining appropriate use of land within the city. Mr. Bell stated that he would not advocate increases in density and is concerned with urban separators. He stated that he opposes staffs recommendation of increasing density. Mr. Johnson stated that he opposes staffs recommendation due to drainage and water displacement problems as well as public safety issues due to road configurations with possible development of 8 units per acre. Mr. Johnson stated that the public notice time lines and the locations for posting public notice boards need to be revisited in the future with a recommendation presented to the City Council from the Board. Mr. Harmon stated that he concurs with Jon Johnson with regard to increasing the notification time lines and perhaps to increase the 300' radius for public notification. Mr. Harmon encouraged the Public Works Department to actively pursue a solution with the Legal Department regarding completion of 144' St. Mr. Harmon stated that he votes to deny this application. 4 Brad Bell MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to deny staffs recommendation of approval for=CPA- 99-3 (D)/CPZ-99-4 Pacific Industries Inc. Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. �t -/ wm_ • I!. 11■ R.9l p --� i 'w' S Vm f r� d � � tb W ry mot••+ N :D CD z w LL �- cc U w , O ca an 3 Q _ r LL Q oil cm � goo . - ,� ... • 46 �� g m © : µ .^ �tAl a , �- 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 FEBRUARY 6, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rico Yingling, Judy Woods, STAFF PRESENT: May Miller, Tom Vetsch, Roger Lubovich, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Linda Johnson The meeting was called to order by Chair Rico Yingling at 4:12 PM. Committee Member Tim Clark was absent. Approval of Minutes of January 16. 2001 Committee Member Judy Woods moved to approve the minutes of January 16, 2001. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 2-0. Kent Downtown Partnership 4"' Quarter Report Kent Downtown Partnership Executive Director Linda Johnson handed out statistics tracking the state's Downtown Program for new businesses and jobs. She said the City of Vancouver had passed Kent because of several new projects in their downtown, but felt assured that when Kent starts working on the Borden Chemical project, it would probably surpass Vancouver again. Since October of 1993 through the end of 2000 there have been 228 new businesses in the Kent downtown district creating S89 new jobs. There were 138 building rehabilitations amounting to S44,000,000 in private reinvestment in the downtown, and that included anything from new roofs to total redesign of the buildings. Fifty-seven businesses out of the over 700 in the downtown district have closed in the last six years, resulting in a loss of 125 jobs in the downtown area and leaving a net of 764 new jobs since October, 1993. Ms. Johnson recognized the efforts of a croup of volunteers that have put in over 10,000 hours in volunteer time in the downtown since 1994. They help with kid's events, stuff envelopes, distribute newsletters, or anything they are called on to do, and also work at the Chamber of Commerce helping with newsletters and distribution, and at the Senior Center, doing whatever is asked of them. The volunteer ladies work for the Parks Department on things like Kids' Arts Day and other special events; some volunteer at schools, reading to kids. There is a group of six who live at Harrison House that volunteer on a regular basis. When a new lady or gentlemen moves into the community, they invite them to participate in the volunteering efforts. Over the years there have been 30-40 volunteers from Harrison House, but the core group of six women have donated an unbelievable amount of time to the Kent community. Ms. Johnson said she would like to be able to honor the ladies in a special way and had already done an article on them for the Partnership's newsletter. Judy Woods suggested featuring them on camera through the Parks Committee Meeting or a Council meeting. Rico Yingling asked Ms. Johnson to talk to the /-� Mavor about acknowledging the volunteer efforts at a Council meeting. 1 Ms. Johnson said she keeps track of sales tax revenue in order to know whether the community is going up or down in value, and the Kent downtown is continuing to grow. There has been Operations Committee,2/6/01 2 concern because JC Penney's is leaving the downtown, but the property owner is committed to ;,•,N the community, and the situation may actually add a boost because he intends to do either remodeling or build a new building with retail on the bottom and office on the top. Two other buildings have sold in the downtown in the last six months. One of the new property owners is having trouble getting development capital, and the Partnership would like to put something together to help him come up with the capital to do the needed improvements. The building across from Penney's was vacant for a year because it was in probate, but it's out of probate now and the Blue Iris Bead company will move into the building in April, tripling its size. Blue Iris Bead's former space has already been leased, leaving only three other vacancies in all of the downtown. Ms. Johnson said this would be the fifth year the Partnership has gone in front of the legislature to try to get House Bill 1723 legislation passed for the Main Street Program. The Bill would make the program a state program rather than a community economic development program. The legislation would provide for a portion of the sales tax collected within the downtown district that now goes into the General Fund of the state, to be returned to the Kent community to help pay for Main Street Programs. Businesses could also give part of their tax revenues to the program and take tax credits. The legislation would provide for building rehabs on those buildings that don't meet the historic code, and would allow a building owner to invest in his property by doing upgrades, and then having the property taxes frozen for 10 years. At the end of that time, the property would be reassessed, and property owners could reinvest again at the 15 year mark and take another tax credit to keep the buildings improved rather than letting them deteriorate. Currently, there are two versions of the bill, one presented by the City of Vancouver .� and the other by the City of Tacoma. Another bill for tax incremental funding would allow property owners to predict how much their Iand values were going to be and borrow against that amount to do improvements. V Ms. Johnson said the Public Market showed a 70% increase in December, 2000 over December, 1999. January, 2001 is estimated to be between 35 and 404% over the prior January. Last weekend was a very good weekend as every space was rented, and in the last month, over 40 new applications were sent out to people that have never been vendors before. In 1999, 99 vendors signed to sell during the year; last year there were 198 vendors signed over the whole year. A contract has been signed with a deli and catering business to provide a full time food service at the Market; construction will start as soon as the Health Department approves their plan. The Market is changing the structure for the outdoor spaces to allow vendors to sell six days a week for one base fee, and the Market will take a small percentage of the sales. That should help encourage people to come more thanjust one day a week. Over the last year the number of farmers from Eastern Washington has increased. One farmer went to Nevada and brought back a truckload of grapefruit, and he's also sending a truck of tangelos and a truck of oranges. Office Supply Contract Customer Service Manager Tom Vetsch said three companies submitted proposals to the City's RFP: Boise Cascade, Office Depot, and Staples. Staples didn't completely qualify under the RFP and withdrew their proposal. The City asked the other two companies to submit discount 1 pricing for about 300 of the highest volume and highest priced items, such as toner cartridges, Operations Committee,2/6101 3 �^ paper, pens, etc. Prices were compared for both companies and in price alone, Boise Cascade came in with the highest discount of about 20% and an annual savings to the City of about $30,000. Both Boise Cascade and Office Depot are located in Kent and pay taxes to Kent. Staff visited both sites and went through their distributing factories, checking off a list of criteria such as price, discounts, corporate presence, other government accounts, delivery services, catalog availability, billing processes, how things are ordered and shipped, next day delivery within 24 hours, returns, and will calls. One of the key factors this year was that Boise Cascade has the JD Edwards system which is the financial system that the City is going to be using, which would facilitate compatibility for centralized ordering by departments and online ordering through the Internet. Returns also would be automated. Products would be received the next day, which would reduce the amount of items that have to be stored in each department, saving on cost of space for filing cabinets, etc. Staff is recommending Boise Cascade for a three vear contract. Pricing would be revisited every year because of paper and other cost changes, and the contract would have disclaimers concerning price increases. The City could also piggyback on local agreements with Tacoma and/or Seattle's bulk contracts in case the market changes. Judy Woods moved to recommend to Council approval of Boise Cascade as the City's office supply and furniture supplier. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and r passed 2-0. Approval of Vouchers dated January 16, January 30. and January 31, 2001. Judy Woods moved approval of vouchers dated January 16, 30, and 31, 2001. The motion was seconded by Rico Yingling and passed 2-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:33 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Judy Woods, Connie Epperly, Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: John Hodgson, Ronda Simons, Brenda Abney, Lori Flemm, Lori Hogan, Pete Petersen, Melanie Manning, Jackie Bicknell PUBLIC PRESENT: Jeff Barker, Wes House, Mary Wright, Aaron Wright, Jonathan Wright The meeting was called to order by Chair Judy Woods at 5:32 PM. One item was added to the agenda: Golf Course Update. Approval of Minutes of January 9, 2001 Committee Member Tom Brotherton moved to approve the minutes of January 9, 2001. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Millennium Art Project - Acceet Cultural Programs Coordinator Brenda Abney provided a model of the art chosen for the Millennium Art Project. The project had been presented for public review at the Kent Commons and had received the most votes from the public. A jury then reviewed the art and talked with the artist, Laura Haddad. Ms. Haddad's millennium theme is about time, memory, and the future, and the she has proposed to have a pyramid that contains a time capsule to be opened in !"i0 or 100 years, as well as other time capsules in smaller pyramids that may be opened in 5 or 10 year intervals that can be replaced to be opened again. The jury and the Kent Arts Commission have recommended the project for installation at the Kent Commons. Four component grids exist in the project, each 16 by 16 feet square: the sum dial is a round element with a seating area surrounding it on two sides; the large pyramid is made of stainless steel panels and a glass top, and contains the time capsule;.the maze in the middle has a pedestal that can be used as a seat, and the artist envisions ice sculptures with imbedded objects to sit on the pedestal. As the ice melts. the objects would fall out to reveal themselves. There will be a hedze of boxwood and a grid of low pyramids that will create a game board effect. Those pyramids will also contain time capsules. Low native shrubs that flower in summer will be planted around the art to create a tapestry effect. Tom Brotherton voiced concern that the glass in the pyramid might not be durable if children climbed on it. Ms. Abney said the pyramid would be made of!%_ inch tempered glass and even a baseball bat wouldn't dama,e it. It will be about 5 feet tall and people can look into the glass to see the capsule. Scratches in the glass can be buffed out, and the piece is also removable for inserting and,or moving the time capsule and for maintenance as needed. Once the project is approved and the artist is under contract, construction would start in mid April and should take about six-eight weeks. ,.-,Mr. Brotherton commented that he would prefer more seating. Ms. Abney said the bench is 16 feet long on each of two sides and would hold quite a number of people. There are also wooden Parks Committee, 2/13/01 2 benches underneath the overhang for seating and people will be free to sit in the grid area. Mr. Brotherton suggested using portable seating for the summer, which suggestion Ms. Abney said she would pass along to the artist. Connie Epperly moved to enter into agreement with Laura Haddad in the amount of $73,000 for the Millennium Art Project at Kent Commons. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. King County Arts Commission Performance Network Grant Cultural Programs Manager Ronda Simons said the King County Arts Commission Performance Network Grant was for services Kent has received for the second year in a row from the King Countv Arts Commission for the King County Performance Network program. The program was originally funded by the National Endowment for the Arts and then by the King County Arts Commission, and the City of Kent has been involved in it for the past four years. The program tours performing artists that are based mostly in Seattle, but is starting to expand throughout the county. The network tours the artists out to rural and suburban communities and pays the artistic fees so the communities have less risk. When the program began, it was mostly contemporary dance, which is difficult for presenters without some assistance because of the expense and the risk connected with it, as there's not a huge audience for that type of programming. After two years, the program changed when the "';EA money ran out. The King County Arts Commission was so pleased with the results of the program that they continued it by using some of their own money and also opened up the field to all genres of music, dance, and theater. The annual money for the program is divided up between the communities based on who's presenting what, and S5,000 was Kent's amount for 2000-2001. There have been two performances with the money: recently, Evening of Acapella with the group Impact, and in January, a Saturday matinee for families with the Seattle Mime Theater performing along with ajuggler. Tom Brotherton moved to accept the S5,000 allocation from the King County Arts Commission's King County Performance Network Program and to amend the Kent Arts Commission budget accordingly. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. 2001 Washington State arts Commission Operational Suupoort Grant Ronda Simons said the City applies for the 2001 Washington State Arts Commission Operational Support Grant every two years and has been awarded 56,000 this year, which is 52,000 more than was received in the last cycle. The grant money is applied to Canterbury Faire to offset the costs for that festival, which takes place in August. Connie Epperly moved to accept the 56,000 grant from the Washington State arts Commission's 2001 Operational Support Program and amend Canterbury Faire budget accordingly. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Parks Committee, 2/13/01 3 2001 King Countv Arts Commission Sustained Support Grant (10�,Dnda Simons said the 2001 King County Arts Commission Sustained Support Grant was for the .J00-2001 funding cycle and is similar to the Washington State Arts Commission award. The S 12,000 grant to Kent is a major increase, double what was received two years ago. The money is for ongoing programs and will be applied throughout the year to such programming as the performing arts artistic fees, Kent Kids' Arts Day, and the Missoula Children's Theater. Tom Brotherton moved to accept the $12,000 grant from the King County Arts Commission's 2001 Sustained Support Program and amend the Kent Arts Commission's budget accordingly. The motion was seconded by Connie Epperly and passed 3-0. Fee-In-Lieu of Funds Parks Planning and Development Superintendent Lori Flemm said that the City collects fees every year from developers of single family housing projects having four houses or more. At the time developers initially meet with the City, dedication of open space or collecting a fee-in-lieu of dedicating open space is discussed. In the year 2000, almost $102,000 was collected from those developments. The funds are used to acquire or develop new parks or to renovate existing parks. The Fee-In-Lieu of Funds received in the year 2000 will be used for the following projects: ■ Clark Lake property acquisition: S28,875.27 • 272"d St property acquisition—three acres along the corridor to use for a future neighborhood park: 533,446.19 Turnkey Park land acquisition: S8,700.00 ■ East Hill Youth Sports Complex land acquisition and development of the Snow Property at 132nd and 2-;S`h Streets: S11,700.43 ■ Morrill Meadows Park development, currently under construction on 248`h, east of Benson Highwav: S19,185.00 Tom Brotherton asked how the amount of money was computed that a developer should contribute in lieu of land. Ms. Flemm said the amount was based on the assessed value of the vacant property at the time the application was submitted for the permit. John Hodgson added that the averave amount is S500-600 per lot. In comparison, the school impact fee is S3500. The Parks Department doesn't take land very often any more. Before certain areas of the community were annexed into Kent, the land donations were small parcels that didn't have any value, such as half a lot that was also a hassle to maintain. Typically, a fee is paid that is put towards a park in the general area of the development. The law requires that the money go towards development or acquisition of parks. Connie Epperly moved to accept the fee-in-lieu of funds totaling $101,906.89 and amend �, the budgets as listed. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Parks Committee, 2/13/01 4 Off Leash DocPark Update Lori Flemm said the South County Task Force for an Off Leash Dog Park was formed by a group of cities in King County to try and find a site in the South County region that could serve as an off leash dog site. The second meeting of the group was held February 2nd with representatives from King County and the cities of Auburn, Sea Tac, Renton, and Kent. The Task Force is looking for a regional site, but so far hasn't found any municipally owned sites that would fit the basic draft criteria of the search. The criteria are that the site should be alreadv publicly owned so there isn't a major land purchase, that it have easy access within the region, be a minimum of 5-10 acres in size (preferably 40 acres), and with topography, soils, and vegetation that could support an off leash park. There should also be a buffer from adjoining land uses, but the width of the buffer hasn't been determined yet. Existing infrastructure like a parking lot or utilities would be desirable because it would be less costly to develop. There should be no water quality or endangered species issues on the site, however there could be a lake if it's not salmon habitat. The next meeting of the Task Force will be March 16, 2001, and it's hoped that the site investigations will be finished by that time. The cities are all interested in a partnership and don't want any one city to bear the burden of the park entirely by itself, but have each city contribute funds or maintenance to support the park. Marymoor Park is a regional off leash site in the north area of the County and a lot of dog owners feel Marymoor is an outstanding facility. The parking lot at Marymoor is at capacity from 8:00 A.N/l to closing on weekends, and 1000 pounds of dog waste is generated every two days in the winter months. Dog dispenser bags are used to collect the waste which are then thrown into a dumpster that's dumped every day. In the summer, the dumpster is filled and dumped twice a day for odor reasons. It is estimated that there are 400,000-600,000 visits per vear based on the number of bags that are purchased. People who live in the South County area frequently use the site at N/Iarymoor, so a South County site should get lots of use. Judy Woods suggested anticipating the need for not just one park but several in the south end because of population growth and to spread out the use. Ms. Flemm said every city is also looking for smaller sites within its own boundaries. The biggest concern from all the cities was that if one city opened a 2-4 acre site, it would get the same use as a regional site and wouldn't be able to handle the crowds that would be attracted. The hope is that a regional site could be identified and either opened simultaneously or prior to some smaller city sites. Service Club Ballfields Update John Hodgson said the Service Club Ballfields is a ,youth baseball/softball facility that the City is working on building in conjunction with all the service clubs in Kent. The original intent was to start building the facility in 2002, but with the acquisition of Borden and the City's desire to develop on the Borden ballfields, the project has been pushed forward to this coming spring. During the permit process, there were some issues with the Endangered Species Act, as the Service Club Ballfields run along 144`h Street, and the ditch on 1441' feeds into Soos Creek. Those issues have slowed down the process as the jurisdiction is under the Corp of Engineers. Parks Committee, 2/13/01 5 The City acquired two parcels of land a few years ago for ballfields on 132"d and 248`h Streets. /44,�velopment on the Snow property fields is moving ahead full steam and three fields should _pen next spring as had been planned for the Service Club Ballfields. There has been no difference in the Service Clubs' donation of funds to the program. The S 140.000 the clubs are donating has allowed the City to get two grants: a$50,000 grant was received from the county and another 5300,000 is up for approval before the state legislature bringing the total of funds for the project so far to $490,000. Unfortunately, there are no grants available for the Snow property, but there are funds in the Real Estate Excise Tax to pay for the ballfields there. Phasing in some amenities such as a restroom and playground equipment or added parking may allow future applications for grants or to seek in-kind donations. The Department is researching synthetic turf fields, which cost more up front but have reduced maintenance costs. They have greater longevity and in many cases play could go on all winter which cannot be done now on fields that are grass. Staff will be looking at sports fields at Seattle elementary schools, high schools, and parks to see how they work and have held up, and will also do some tests. A decision would probably be made in the next couple of weeks whether to go with synthetic turf fields, and if chosen, play could start on the fields by September. Tom Brotherton asked if synthetic coverings could increase injuries. Mr. Hodgson said the product out now is different from the typical artificial turf, which in the past was basically carpet. Now synthetic turf is three inches long and has two inches of a sand/ground-up rubber mix added on top to make a %z-1 inch finished field of synthetic turf above a dirt field. Husky Stadium uses and most colleges are going towards using it; Paul Allen is looking at using it for the new Sea .awks football stadium; and elementary schools around the country are starting to build artificial turf fields because they can have recess year round. However, the Federation of Soccer Associations hasn't allowed the turf yet. (Two soccer fields will be added to the Snow property, overlaying the baseball fields.) The turf is durable and drains well, so it's never muddy, and there is about a 560,000 yearly savings in maintenance. A drainage system would be required underneath the turf and it should be fenced. The decision to use the turf.will come down to up- front costs versus less maintenance costs over the long term. Golf Course Update Golf Operations Superintendent Pete Petersen handed out a list of revenue and expense figures and a comparison study for Riverbend Golf Course. He said when the City hired the consultant to review operations at the golf course, the numbers for 1998 were reviewed for comparison with 1999 and 2000. The year 2000 was a good year weather wise and play was heavy, except for the miniature zolf course whose entrance was under construction all summer. Kent was able to increase the rounds of play at the 18 hole course by about 10,000 and at the par 3 course by about 5,000. In January, 2001 the 18 hole course was averaging over 100 players a day; in 2000, the average was 64. That equaled over 1000 rounds more in the month of January this year than last year. John Hodgson said the difference in revenue was about $220,000, and in comparison to other golf courses, which were down in use, 2000 was a phenomenal year for Riverbend. Mr. Petersen said the philosophy of supplying good mats and good balls, the best price, and taking ware of the customers makes a big difference. The clientele base for Riverbend is growing and ith the specials the course is running, in the long term it will be back on top. Connie Epperly Parks Committee, 2/13/01 6 commented that with adding the restaurant, a lot more people other than golfers are coming t, the course. Mr. Petersen said staff has some great promotion ideas for the year coming up suer. as a family night at the miniature course and Captain Jack's, and also having an outdoor movie on the driving range. Maintenance expenses are tracked at the Course, which had three full time maintenance people at the end of 1998. One person retired and the other two changed departments, and at that time, a decision was made to make those positions part-time in an effort to save money. In 1999, the first year the changes were implemented, almost $100,000 was saved. Last year there was less than a S200 increase from 1999. Mr. Hodgson commented that even with the increase in cost of living, Riverbend was still reducing expenses. V1r. Petersen said staff is also trying to reduce expenses in the maintenance of equipment. The City entered into a municipal lease program with Toro, which resulted in a savings of about 534,000 between late April, 1999 to 2000. This year there will be an additional 520,000 in savings. John Hodgson added that more pieces of equipment would be rolled into the Equipment Lease Program. Additional capital expenses have accrued because staff took advantage of the onaoing construction to make repairs on some of the things where maintenance had been deferred. Revenue from food was very low last year because of the construction, but for 2001 5'75,000 has been budgeted as expected revenue for the restaurant. (The actual projection is 5125,000 based on sales, so the picture could possibly be even better.) Pete Petersen said that salaries had been projected as a decrease for 2001. Last year, start up costs included salaries and benefits for the people that ran the Par 3 course and the driving range for the first two months of the year, and also included things like buying a range picker and new mats and balls. In a comparison with other golf courses, Auburn, Elk Run, Maplewood, North Shore, and Sumner Meadows were picked as the immediate competition for Riverbend. Some courses did extremely well last year and some really dropped off. Staff called 33.golf courses, and their play ranged from being down 12% to being up 8;�°o. Riverbend was up 14.8% on play at the 18 Hole Course and 10.9% at the Par 3. The Seattle Times had put together a panel of 13 golfers last spring, and one of the questions asked was what was the best value for the dollar. Riverbend was one of the three courses that received five votes. Connie Epperly asked how many years were left on the debt service for the golf course. Mr. Hodgson said the debt service would be up in 2008 and 2011. The meeting was adjourned at 4:52 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary r^� r PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2000 CONIN-IITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Connie Epperly. Sandy Amodt. Tom Brotherton STAFF PRESENT: Chief Crawford, Form Angelo, John Pagel, Judi Mauhl, Pat Fitzpatrick. Bruce Weissich. Jackie Bicknell The meeting %vas called to order by Chair Connie Epperly at 5:12 PM. One item was added to the avenda: Kent Corrections Facility Medical Contract. Dent Corrections Facility Medical Contract Police Chief Ed Crawford asked for approval of the Medical Contract for the Kent Corrections Facility for the upcoming year. A medical screening rule says that everyone must be medically screened within 14 days and all kitchen workers must be screened before they're allowed to work in the kitchen. Last year the medical contract hours were increased from SO to 80 hours per week with an RN on duty seven days a week. including the extended hours. Fees to contract with the current hospital have gone up about 6% and are S260,900 for this next year. Fees last year wl-re around S245.000. Chief Crawford said he had asked staff to look at the private competition in the marketplace after completion of this next contract, but commented that there isn't a large group of people that contract for this type of service. The Seattle/King County Department of Health used to contract ith the Citv of Kent, but got out of the business about two years ago and the C%tv changed to another contract firm at that time. Committee member Tom Brotherton moved to authorize the Mavor to sign a contract with the Public Hospital District =1 for medical services at the Bent Jail for nest year. The motion NN as seconded by Committee Member Sandy Amodt and passed 3-0. _ llproval of the Minutes of September 12. 2000 Sande Amodt moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 2000. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. Sole Source Range Equipment Police Training Sergeant John Pagel said the Department is requesting that S38,000 be transferred from the Seized Assets Account into a Projects Account to upgrade the Police �-. shooting range. A decision had been made when the Police range was constructed to purchase i an electronic system that was in the process of being phased out and would no longer be Public Safety Committee, 10/10/00 Page 2 produced. That system has been in use now for 10 years and has experienced significant problems over the past 2-3 years. Sergeant Pagel said the Ran gemaster spends an extraordinary amount of time tracking down electronic components to keep the system operating. Out of five lanes, two have been down for a significant amount of time. Caswell International, the original vendor for the tracking system, has given the Department a bid of S29.950 to retrofit the range with a new electronic system that would include a computer, key pads for each station, and target carriers that physically move the targets down the tracks. The Department is requesting to be allowed to sole source to Caswell International because no other vendor makes a product which would travel on their tracks. Tom Brotherton theorized that the choice of a unit which didn't have any other vendors supplying parts would force the City into the sole source situation for years to come. He asked if there were any vendors that made pans for other vendors' systems. Sergeant Pagel stated that manufacturers try to maintain proprietary rights to their systems and don't try to be compatible with other companies, which creates a problem when retrofitting something like the range. Removing the tracks, completely gutting the range and bringing in a new contractor would cost a significant amount of money, and that contractor would probably be proprietary also. If the City went with another vendor and there was a problem with the retained tracking system, Caswell International would void any warranty that was still in effect. Tom Brotherton said he would like to see more research in the future into other options available and whether there might be better deals with newer technology. Sandv Amodt moved to recommend to Council approval to sole source Police Department range equipment and to transfer S38,000 from the Seized Asset account to a Special Project account. The motion was seconded by Tom Brotherton and passed 3-0. National Night Out Update Police Department Public Education Specialist Judi Mauhl gave an update on the National Night Out that was held August 1, 2000. She said results hadn't been received vet on whether Kent was a national award winner this year. but the report had been compiled and sent to the national committee. The neighborhood events almost doubled this year with about 1,600 citizens participating (not counting the City Council, Police Department, and others who helped with the event). Close to 1.000 people participated last year. Ms. ylauhl showed a four minute video put together by -Multi Media Video Specialist Kevin Sprotbery that is used in her talks with Block Watch groups. The video showed scenes from this last vear's National Nicyht Out and contained remarks from Councilmembers and citizens. The once a vear national event brings neighbors together outside their homes to see and talk with each other, which helps to ensure their communities are safer because people get to know who belongs in the neighborhood and who does not. It is also an excellent opportunity for new people arriving in the community to get to know their neighbors and to be part of that network. By binding the community together, law enforcement is made more reliable, consistent, and effective and is a better return to the citizens for their tax dollars. Public Safety Committee, 10/10/00 Page 3 Ms. Mauhl said a lot of new groups had formed since the August 1"National Night Out. It's easy to start a group by getting neighbors together and creating a map of the neighborhood with residents' names, addresses, and phone numbers. Neighborhoods that have public streets receive Block Watch signs and they get newsletters four times a year. People who are interested in starting a Block Watch group can call the Kent Police Department at 856-5800 and ask for Judi Mauhl. EMS Task Force Report Chair Connie Epperly said that King County was quite surprised by the letter from the City of Kent takine the stand that Emergency Medical Service is an essential regional service that should be funded by existing tax dollars. The new task force this year had given a levy only option which prompted the City Council to unanimously vote to continue the stand that King County should substantially fund EMS. King County has said they feel it is premature now to look into the 2002 budget, but will look at it after the first of the year to see what they can do by funding or partially funding the amount. A new EMS levy has to be approved by all five of the major cities, which are Kent, Federal Way, Bellevue, Shoreline, and Seattle. Kent has veto power and can choose not to approve a levy for the ballot. Ms. Epperly stated that the City Council has chosen to prioritize EMS because they feel it is an essential service and are willing to make sure that Kent's citizens have the service provided to them. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 PM. Jackie Bicknell City Council Secretary CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. EXECUTIVE SESSION A) Pending Litigation r.